THE  FIRST  CHAPTER  OF  GENESIS 
THE  ROCK  FOUNDATION 
FOR  SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION 


ALBERT  L.  GRIDLEY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/firstchapterofgeOOgridrich 


THE  FIRST  CHAPTER  OF  GENESIS 

AS  THE  ROCK  FOUNDATION 

FOR  SCIENCE  AND 

RELIGION 

BY 

ALBERT  L.  GRIDLEY,  A.  M. 

Author  of 

"Jesus  Only,"  "Suborganic  Evolution," 

"Organic  Evolution,"  etc. 


RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

THE  GORHAM   PRESS 
BOSTON 


3-^.l\ 


COPTBIQHT  1913  BT  RICHARD  6.  BADGER 


All  Rights  Reserved 


THE  GORHAM  PRESS;  BOSTON^  U.   S.  A. 


TO   ONE 

Who,  in  the  twenty-seven  short  years  of  her  life  was 

always  in  look,  word  and  deed  filial,  faithful 

and  loving  our  daughter 

REN  A  EMILY  PETTIBONE 

this  little  vohime  is  affectionately  inscribed 


345055 


FOREWORD 

IT  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  connection  with  both 
science  and  religion  that  the  teachers  in  both  realms 
have  persistently  overlooked  the  provision  God  has 
made  that  each  should  supplement  the  other. 

His  evident  intention  is  that  science  should  enlarge  the 
borders  of  the  religious  sphere  and  that  the  Bible  as  a 
teacher  of  religion  should  not  only  keep  abreast  of  scien- 
tific attainment  but  even  lead  the  way  to  higher  intel- 
lectual results. 

While  this  is  true  of  the  whole  Bible  it  is  particularly 
so  of  the  opening  chapter  of  that  book. 

In  earlier  ages  it  served  as  an  exercise  of  faith  that 
was  reasonable  only  because  it  formed  a  part  of  records 
that  all  through  the  ages  have  been  regarded  as  the  word 
of  God  and  that  all  along  bore  the  imprints  of  the  Maker 
of  all  things.  But  in  an  age  when  science  has  advanced 
so  as  more  nearly  to  comprehend  its  truth,  it  stands  as 
a  monument  to  a  wisdom  more  than  human.  As  such  it 
lends  its  warrant  to  other  records  that  are  based  upon  it. 

But  before  proceeding  to  develop  thoughts  along  this 
line  it  may  be  well  to  outline  a  brief  summary  of  the 
argument. 

Consider  first  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis  I. 

Geology  has  already  established  some  propositions  that 
are  universally  acknowledged  to  be  correct. 

1st.  The  earth  was  once  covered  with  water  and  every- 
thing was  at  a  very  high  temperature. 

2d.  Owing  to  rapid  evaporation  of  water  from  the 
earth's  interior  heat,  dense  clouds  formed  in  the  upper 

5 


6  Foreword 

atmosphere  which  excluded  the  light  from  the  heavenly 
bodies,  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep. 

3d.  After  a  time  there  were  upheavals  of  the  earth's 
crust  and  the  continents  began  to  appear. 

4th.  As  cooling  proceeded,  precipitation  would  dimin- 
ish the  density  of  the  overhanging  clouds,  and  light  could 
penetrate  them  enough  to  make  a  distinction  between 
day  and  night,  and  to  permit  the  existence  of  low  forms 
of  vegetable  and  animal  life,  long  before  one  could  locate 
the  heavenly  bodies. 

5th.     Vegetable  life  appeared  before  animal  life. 

6th.  Low  forms  of  animal  life  followed  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  vegetable  life. 

7th.  Following  these,  the  higher  forms  of  animal  life 
appeared. 

To  say  nothing  of  any  others,  here  are  seven  proposi- 
tions, reached  by  purely  scientific  methods,  and  yet  they 
are  clearly  stated  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  The 
writer  of  that  chapter  must  have  known  something  in 
general  of  the  subject  that  he  was  writing  upon. 

Farther  than  this,  the  records  in  the  rocks  in  countless 
instances  confirm  the  biogenesis  of  that  chapter,  as  will  be 
shown  in  its  proper  place. 

Admitting  these  confirmations  by  modern  science  of 
the  records  in  Genesis  we  may  look  for  further  conclu- 
sions. The  science  of  astronomy  has  been  advancing  for 
centuries.  During  the  last  century  every  advance,  every 
newly  discovered  fact  points  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
original  condition  of  matter  was  a  very  comminuted,  dis- 
sipated one,  call  it  nebula  if  you  choose.  It  is  somewhat 
dangerous  to  touch  upon  this  subject  for  there  may  still 
be  some  who  think,  as  the  present  writer  once  did, 
that  this  view  borders  upon  atheism.     Really,  however, 


Foreword  7 

it  is  one  of  the  most  fundamentally  important  revelations 
in  the  interests  of  religion  that  has  been  made  in  the 
progress  of  scientific  discovery. 

For  one  thing,  if  admitted,  it  establishes  beyond  the 
possibility  of  reasonable  doubt,  as  will  be  shown,  that 
there  must  have  been  a  beginning,  and  that,  astronomic- 
ally, that  beginning  was  but  a  very  short  time  ago. 

And  again,  if  it  can  be  shown  to  be  reasonably  certain 
that  the  writer  of  Genesis  saw  that  truth  also,  it  will  add 
vastly  to  the  probability  that  he  knew  something  about 
other  things  that  he  has  written. 

The  words  that  he  uses  with  reference  to  the  first  con- 
dition of  matter  are  ''tohu,  bohu/^  defined  as  *' empti- 
ness, vacancy,"  or  '* formless,  void."  Whatever  other 
meanings  these  words  may  have,  if  any,  they  certainly 
convey  the  idea  of  matter  in  an  attenuated,  diffused  con- 
dition. They  as  clearly  define  the  probable  first  condi- 
tion of  matter  as  any  words  in  the  Hebrew  language 
could  do.  At  least,  they  settled  the  matter  in  the  mind 
of  the  present  writer.  As  stated  above,  he  once  held  the 
nebular  theory  to  border  on  atheism  and  attempted  to 
prove  by  mathematical  calculations  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  a  mass  of  matter  in  that  condition  so  to 
contract  as  to  form  spheres  moving  in  planetary  orbits. 
But  the  result  of  his  calculations  in  1872  proved  that  it 
was  possible  and  further,  that  the  contraction  must  have 
been  exceedingly  rapid.  From  that  time  on  he  held  tf»e 
theory  tentatively  until  the  meaning  of  those  words  came 
to  him  like  a  revelation,  and  from  that  time  there  has 
been  no  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  manner  of  creation, 
for  Genesis  had  spoken.  The  ions  and  electrons  of  modern 
science  were  balanced  in  the  primitive  atoms  scattered 
through  space,  and  what  we  call  natural  laws  directing 


8  Foreword 

the  operation  of  physical  forces  caused  them  to  assume 
the  forms  they  have.  Science  and  Genesis  harmonize  in 
this  \'iew. 

It  is,  then,  beyond  a  peradventure  that  from  the  ap- 
pearance of  primitive  matter  to  the  appearance  of  man 
on  the  planet  the  writer  of  Genesis  I.  has  correctly 
described  the  necessary  processes,  or,  to  say  the  least,  he  is 
in  harmony  with  modern  scientific  results. 

This  being  so,  there  is  reasonable  ground  to  suppose 
that  he  may  be  correct  in  some  other  of  his  statements. 
Instead  of  setting  up  our  own  supposed  knowledge  as 
opposed  to  his  supposed  ignorance,  it  may  be  wiser  for 
us  to  hold  our  own  wisdom  in  abeyance  and  see  if  we 
cannot  learn  something  from  that  writer. 

One  of  the  most  seemingly  absurd  things  in  the  order 
of  events  as  recorded  in  Genesis  is  the  appearance  of  light 
before  that  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  But,  as  stated  in 
proposition  4  above,  no  one  could  dispute  that  in  the 
natural  order  light  could  penetrate  the  clouds  enough  to 
make  a  distinction  between  night  and  day  long  before 
the  sun,  moon  and  stars  could  be  located  in  the  heavens. 
The  only  question  is  as  to  how  long  this  condition  could 
have  continued.  Men  assume  that  it  must  have  been  very 
short.  But  this  assumption  is  contrary  to  all  other 
assumptions  regarding  cosmic  processes.  It  may  have 
been  long  enough  to  admit  of  all  the  events  recorded  in 
Genesis  I.  Men,  even  now,  might  learn  something  from 
one  whose  wisdom  in  this  matter  has  been  so  wonderfully 
demonstrated. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  the  earth's  history  the  changes 
were  very  rapid,  but  when  the  earth  had  cooled  suffi- 
ciently to  allow  life  upon  its  surface,  they  were  much 


Foreword  9 

more  slow,  so  that  ages  might  have  passed  before  the 
heavenly  bodies  could  have  been  located. 

To  pass  for  a  moment  beyond  the  first  chapter.  The 
idea  has  been  ridiculed  that  there  could  have  been  no 
rainbow  before  the  flood.  But  first,  one  may  have  been 
seen  many  times  before  without  the  significance  that 
God  attached  to  it  after  the  flood.  But  if  we  have  to 
admit  that  one  had  never  been  seen  before,  it  is  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  over  the  limited  area  then  occupied 
by  the  human  race  the  rains  could  have  been  universal 
with  no  local  showers.  In  that  case  there  would  have  been 
no  rainbow. 

But  one  of  the  objections  to  the  correctness  of 
Genesis  I.  is  in  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  **rakia,'' 
'* expanse,"  or,  as  it  is  translated,  ** firmament.''  This 
word  is  sometimes  tortured  back  into  one  of  its  original 
meanings  regardless  of  the  fact  that  a  word  may  have 
several  meanings  and  that  candor  requires  us  to  use  that 
meaning  that  will  fit  into  the  connection  and  make  sense. 
The  sense  here  is  determined  by  the  narrative  itself  that 
speaks  of  ' '  fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven." 

Genesis  speaks  of  grass  or  vegetation  before  animal  life 
began.  Every  one  knows  that  this  is  the  order  of  nature 
though  the  rocks  have  not,  as  yet,  yielded  any  fossils  of 
**the  tender  grass"  here  spoken  of. 

There  is  no  insuperable  objection  to  receiving  the  entire 
narrative  as  scientifically  correct  though  some  of  its 
statements  may  not  yet  be  fully  comprehended. 

So  much  for  the  cosmology  of  that  chapter. 

An  introductory  hint  as  to  the  biogenesis  of  that 
chapter  has  already  been  given  but  another  word  is  due. 
It  is  simply  that,  taking  the  records  in  Genesis  as  they 


10  Foreword 

read  and  the  records  in  the  rocks  as  they  are,  there  is 
absolute  agreement.  It  is  only  when  one  puts  impossible 
interpretations  upon  the  record  in  geology  that  'he  finds 
any  diflBculties  in  Genesis. 

Now,  admitting  some  things  that  we  cannot  yet  fully 
understand,  there  are  enough  statements  that  science  has 
fully  verified  to  prove  that  the  writer  of  Genesis  I.  knew 
what  he  was  talking  about.  The  question  then  is,  if  he 
had  a  knowledge  that  has  been  reached  only  by  several 
thousand  years  of  scientific  study,  is  it  not  probable  that 
he  knew  what  he  was  saying  in  the  declaration,  ''in  the 
beginning  God  created ' '  ?  We  are  brought,  then,  by  a 
process  of  connected  reasoning,  from  the  records  in 
Genesis,  confirmed  by  science,  to  God,  the  Absolute  in 
philosophy,  the  Ultimate  in  science. 

Men  have  tried  to  find  God  by  searching  along  one  line. 
He  may  be  found  by  searching  along  either  one  of  two 
lines  if  we  had  the  ability  to  find  the  truth  and  the  can- 
dor to  admit  it. 

We  may  look  along  the  line  of  science  as  Prof.  Win- 
chell  has  done  in  his  very  valuable  book,  Reconciliation 
of  Science  and  Religion,  but  some  may  not  admit  the 
validity  of  the  argument.  We  may  look  along  the  line 
of  revelation,  and  God  is  found  all  through  the  book  by 
those  who  admit  a  divine  revelation,  but  some  do  not 
admit  such  a  revelation.  But  putting  the  two  together, 
we  have  writings  sustained,  proven  true  by  science,  and 
they  plainly  declare  the  existence  of  such  a  Being.  We 
have  direct  statements  backed  up  by  scientific  proof. 

But  the  question  arises,  Are  those  writings  above  refer 
red  to  a  revelation?  The  writer  of  Genesis  had  a  knowl- 
edge of  cosmogony  thousands  of  years  before  modern 
science  was  dreamed  of.    How  did  he  obtain  it  ?    It  could 


Foreword  11 

hardly  have  been  by  unaided  intellectual  effort.  If  it 
were,  men  were  vastly  wiser  in  those  early  ages  than  they 
have  ever  had  the  credit  of  being.  The  most  reasonable 
supposition  is  that  the  One  who  made  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  in  some  way  revealed  the  methods  He  employed. 
It  is  infinitely  probable  that  the  writer  of  that  book  was 
one  of  those  **Holy  men  of  God"  who  '* spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Genesis  I.,  then,  furnishes  a  solid  foundation  for 
science  and  the  first  business  of  science  is  to  build  upon 
that  foundation.  Gtod  is,  God  created,  God  made  is  the 
absolute  fact  back  of  all  philosophy.  This,  too,  is  the 
bottom  fact  of  a  true  religion.  Some  of  the  essentials  of 
a  religion  based  upon  this  fact  are  outlined  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages. 

A  chapter,  XIV,  on  the  writer's  own  experience  is 
given  to  establish  the  certainty  of  the  further  fact  that 
this  infinite  Grod  condescends  to  guide  His  trusting  chil- 
dren. It  is  within  the  power  of  every  one  to  know  as  cer- 
tainly of  the  existence  and  the  constant  presence  of  God 
as  to  know  the  same  of  his  earthly  parents. 

After  all,  the  great  final  purpose  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings is  to  bring  men  into  this  immediate,  personal  rela- 
tionship with  Him. 

To  those  who  have  learned  God  in  this  way  it  may 
seem  unnecessary  to  look  along  the  lines  suggested  above. 
They  do  not  need  to.  But  there  may  be  those  who  have 
never  found  Him  in  this  way  and  yet  may  be  led  by 
reason  to  look  in  such  a  way  as  to  find  a  saving  knowledge 
of  the  truth. 

At  any  rate,  one  who  has  found  Him  by  direct  expe- 
rience in  any  way  need  not  depend  wholly  upon  that 


12  Foreword 

experience  to  convince  another  of  the  reasonableness  of 
the  faith  that  is  in  him. 

He  may  base  that  faith  upon  conclusive,  scientific 
proof.  Science  confirms  Genesis  and  Genesis  says  '  *in  the 
beginning  God. ' '  He  is  the  Author  of  religion.  He  is  the 
Ultimate  to  which  philosophy  must  appeal  and  beyond 
which  science  cannot  go.  Thus  the  chapter  that  contains 
such  marvellous  truths  becomes  the  standard  of  truth, 
the  Rock  foundation  of  Science  and  Religion. 

The  chapters  on  Cosmogony  and  Biogenesis  are  to  a 
considerable  extent  taken  from  booklets  which  the 
present  writer  had  printed  some  time  ago  and  a  few 
copies  sent  out  for  examination  and  comment.  Follow- 
ing these  chapters  are  a  few  touching  upon  some  of  the 
more  prominent  features  of  the  Christian  religion. 

While  the  writer  believes  that  every  position  taken  in 
these  chapters  is  correct,  there  may  be  some  that  may  not 
be  readily  granted.  But  however  this  may  be,  all  that  are 
essential  to  the  present  contention  are  either  axiomatic, 
demonstrable  or  vouched  for  on  the  highest  authority. 

An  appendix  is  added  to  make  more  clear  some  difficult 
parts,  and  it  may  be  well  for  the  reader  to  refer  to  it 
when  necessary.  To  cast  some  side  lights  upon  the 
problems  of  cosmogony  an  excursus  is  added. 

Hoping  that  these  thoughts  may  be  of  some  assistance 
to  the  strengthening  of  an  intelligent  faith  in  the  Bible 
as  the  word  of  God,  with  its  attendant  benefits  to  those 
two  agencies  for  the  upbuilding  of  true  manhood,  science 
and  religion,  they  are  respectfully  submitted  to  those  who 
may  be  inclined  to  read  them. 

A.  L.  a 

Parsons,  Kansas, 
October,  1913, 


CONTENTS 
Chapter  Page 

/     The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis  and  That  of 

Science  is  the  Same 17 

//    The  Origin  of  Life  as  Described  in  Genesis 

and  Recorded  in  the  Bocks  45 

///    The  Origin  of  Life  as  Described  in  Genesis 

and  Recorded  in  the  Rocks,  continued 60 

IV    The  Science  of   Geology,   Confirming   the 

Records  of  Genesis  I 75 

V    The  Fall  of  Man 94 

VI    The  Story  of  Redemption 102 

VII    Subjective  Salvation 120 

VIII    An  Answer  to  Criticism — Isaiah 131 

IX    Another  Answer  to  Criticism — Daniel 140 

X    Dangers  of  Egocentric  Theology  145 

XI    The  Bible  as  an  Authority  to  be  Obeyed 156 

XII    The  Reasonableness  of  the  Christian's  Faith  161 

XIII  Individu4il  Attitude  167 

XIV  An  Individual  Experience  of  God  Present 

and  Guiding 173 

XV    The  New  Life  From  God 183 

XVI    Concluding  Words 197 

Appendix 201 


THE  FIRST  CHAPTER  OF  GENESIS 

AS  THE  ROCK  FOUNDATION 

FOR  SCIENCE  AND 

RELIGION 


CHAPTER    I 

The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis  and  That  of  Science 
is  the  Same 

BEFORE  considering  the  contents  of  this  mar- 
vellous chapter  it  may  be  well  to  stop  for  a 
moment  upon  the  popular  conception  concern- 
ing the  ancient  cosmologies. 
Without  dwelling  upon  the  ideas  of  the  Babylonians, 
Egyptians,  the  Indians  and  others,  it  is  desirable  here  to 
mention  only  the  supposed   cosmology  of   the  ancient 
Hebrews. 

The  most  erroneous  ideas  are  attributed  to  the  sacred 
writers  from  such  poetic  expressions  as  *  *  Hast  thou  with 
him  spread  out  the  sky  which  is  strong  and  as  a  molten 
looking  glass?" 

Some  think  that  this  passage  proves  that  Job  thought 
that  the  sky  was  something  like  a  brass  vessel  inverted 
overhead  and  scoured  bright  like  an  ancient  mirror. 
This  is  one  of  a  few  passages  upon  which  is  based  the 
idea  of  the  ignorance  of  the  ancients.  But  as  opposed  to 
this  we  quote  again  from  Job  (26:7,  8)  **He  stretcheth 
out  the  north  over  the  empty  place  and  hangeth  the  earth 
upon  nothing.  He  bindeth  up  the  waters  in  his  thick 
clouds ;  and  the  cloud  is  not  rent  under  them. ' ' 

A  little  farther  on  in  the  same  chapter  (V.  13)  he  says 
"By  his  spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens;  his  hand 
hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent.''  In  this  he  refers  to 
the  constellation,  the  Dragon.  He  speaks  also  of  other 
constellations.  Speaking  of  God  he  says, ' 'Which  maketh 
Arcturus,  Orion,  and  Pleiades,  and  the  chambers  of  the 
south. ' '    Again, '  *  Canst  thou  bind  the  sweet  influences  of 

IT 


18      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

the  Pleiades,  or  loose  the  bands  of  Orion?  Canst  thou 
bring  forth  Mazzaroth  in  his  season  ?  or  canst  thou  guide 
Arcturus  with  his  sons  ? ' ' 

The  constellations  as  we  now  have  them  were  known 
and  named  hundreds  if  not  thousands  of  years  before  the 
time  of  Moses.  There  is  evidence  that  the  constellations 
were  already  divided  and  named  in  the  time  of  Enoch. 
Cassini  commences  his  history  of  astronomy  by  saying 
''it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  astronomy  was  invented 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  Sir  William  Drum- 
mond  says,  ''the  fact  is  certain  that  at  some  remote 
period  there  were  mathematicians  and  astronomers  who 
knew  that  the  sun  is  the  center  of  our  system  and  that 
the  earth,  itself  a  planet,  revolved  around  it. ' ' 

In  a  recent  article  on  Progressive  Astronomy  we  read 
that  Chaldea,  Egypt,  China,  India,  the  Incas,  the  Aztecs, 
the  Druids — all  ancient  peoples,  back  to  prehistoric  times, 
have  observed  the  stars.  The  zodiac,  or  sun's  path 
among  the  stars  each  year,  the  phases  of  the  moon,  the 
fixed  constellations  and  wandering  comets,  the  eclipses 
of  the  sun  and  moon  and  the  conjunction  of  the  planets 
were  all  known  before  Abraham  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees. 
Archaeologists  have  discovered,  in  Babylonia,  multiplica- 
tion tables  as  high,  at  least,  as  1300,  which  were  used, 
as  Hilprecht  observes,  as  we  use  logarithms  and  in 
astronomical  calculations.  It  is  very  probable  that  the 
ancients  knew  as  much  about  astronomy  as  we  should 
know  today  without  instruments. 

The  great  pyramid  of  Egypt  was  built  more  than  600 
years  before  the  time  of  Moses,  but  an  astronomer,  taking 
a  hint  from  that,  calculated  the  distance  of  the  sun 
within  270  miles  of  the  results  of  the  most  accurate 
observations  and  calculations  of  the  19th  century.    The 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      19 

builders  of  that  pyramid  knew  the  distance  to  the  sun 
and  left  a  record  of  their  knowledge.  Prof.  Newcomb 
is  right  in  the  declaration  that  not  enough  credit  has  been 
given  the  ancient  astronomers.  There  is  no  time  within 
the  scope  of  history  when  it  was  not  known  that  the 
earth  is  a  sphere. 

As  compared  with  the  science  of  astronomy  the  book 
of  Genesis  is  a  recent  work,  and  aside  from  any  inspira- 
tion Moses  was  **  Learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians."  Egypt,  at  that  time,  was  the  seat  of  the 
world's  learning. 

I  have  glanced  at  some  of  these  facts  to  establish  an 
antecedent  probability  that  Moses  knew  something  of 
what  he  was  writing  about  even  aside  from  any  inspira- 
tion from  on  high. 

There  is  reason,  however,  to  believe  that  the  original 
revelation  concerning  the  creation  was  made  to  mankind 
ages  before  the  time  of  Moses.  The  grotesque  forms  the 
story  afterward  assumed  was  the  result  of  changes  made 
by  men  who  thought  that  they  were  too  wise  to  accept  it 
in  its  form  as  given,  and  so  they  modified  it  to  suit  their 
own  wisdom. 

Beginning  now  with  the  chapter,  I  pass  over  the  first 
declaration.  In  the  beginning  Grod  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,  and  pass  to  the  condition  of  matter  thus 
created. 

The  earth  was  'Uohu/'  ^^bohu."  These  words  are 
variously  translated,  as  ** without  form,"  ''void,"  or  as 
Young  defines  them  ''emptiness,"  "vacancy." 

There  are  probably  no  words  in  the  Hebrew  language 
that  could  more  accurately  define  what  science  for  the 
past  100  years  declares  to  have  been  the  primordial  con- 
dition of  the  material  composing  our  solar  system.  There 


20      Genesis,  Foundation  for  8ci$nc$  and  Religion 

is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  writer  used  those  words 
knowingly,  and  that  he  meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  it 
was  in  a  very  comminuted,  dissipated  form,  not  respon- 
sive to  the  sense  of  touch. 

Without  doubt  this  was  the  original  condition  of  mat- 
ter and  if  it  were  created  in  that  form  and  then  left  to 
the  operation  of  ** natural  law''  as  we  should  say,  and 
physical  forces,  every  phenomenon  that  scientists  have 
since  observed  or  proven  to  exist,  would  have  followed 
in  natural  order  and  without  further  miraculous  inter- 
vention. Further  than  this,  there  has  been  left  recorded 
in  nature  the  Divine  plan  and  the  Divine  mode  of  opera- 
tion. 

Assuming,  then,  as  a  working  hypothesis,  that  this  was 
the  first  form  of  matter  and  that  then  it  was  left  to  the 
operations  of  natural  law  and  physical  forces,  some 
things  may  be  affirmed  with  certainty. 

I.  The  nebulas  must  have  been  extremely  tenuous.  A 
moment's  calculation  would  show  that  if  it  extended  to 
the  outmost  known  limits  of  our  system  it  must  have  been 
at  least  10,000  times  as  thin  as  common  air  at  sea  level.  It 
must  have  existed  as  gas,  vapor  or  dust.  Gas  is  a  form  of 
matter  whose  particles  seem  to  have  the  power  of  affect- 
ing other  particles  without  actual  contact  as  shown  by 
sound  and  light.  Vapor  is  a  liquid  in  a  state  of  minute 
sublivision  and  dust  is  a  solid  in  the  same  condition.  The 
nebula  must  have  existed  as  one  or  more  of  these  forms 
of  matter.  Above  the  temperature  of  312  below  zero,  air 
exists  as  a  gas.  At  that  temperature  it  exists  as  a  liquid, 
and  perhaps  at  interstellar  or  absolute  cold  it  would  exist 
as  a  solid,  and  in  nebula  would  be  extremely  comminuted. 
If  this  be  true  of  air  it  certainly  would  be  true  of  those 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      21 

forms  of  matter  that  liquefy  and  solidify  at  much  higher 
temperatures. 

II.  The  nebula  may  have  been  either  cold  or  hot. 
The  supposition  used  to  be  that  it  must  have  been 

originally  at  a  temperature  that  would  be  required  to 
return  the  system  to  that  condition  of  tenuity.  That 
assumption,  however,  is  not  essential  to  the  theory.  The 
concussion  of  condensation  near  the  close  of  the  process 
of  star  formation  would  produce  more  heat  than  there  are 
traces  of  at  present.  If  the  temperature  were  originally 
very  high,  the  nebula  would  have  cooled  with  great 
rapidity,  according  to  the  law  of  radiation,  from  each 
separate  particle  with  little  hindrance  by  surround- 
ing particles,  rather  than  according  to  the  law  for  the 
cooling  of  liquids  or  solids,  in  which  heat  must  pass 
by  conduction  from  the  interior  parts  with  radiation 
only  from  the  surface.  This  is  shown  by  the  almost 
instantaneous  cooling  of  gases  formed  by  explosive  com- 
pounds, in  which  the  loss  of  heat  is  almost  instantaneous. 
It  is  thus  that  the  super-heated  nebula  would  cool.  The 
higher  the  temperature,  the  more  rapid  would  be  the 
process  of  cooling  and  the  super-incumbent  gases  or 
other  substances,  though  great  in  volume,  would  be 
so  exceedingly  tenuous  as  to  offer  but  little  resistance 
to  radiation.  If  originally  cold,  as  noted  above,  heat 
would  be  produced  by  the  concussion  of  contraction  and 
toward  the  close  of  the  process  of  star  formation  the 
amount  would  be  very  great.  In  either  case  contraction 
could  so  proceed  as  to  form  a  stellar  system  like  our  own. 

III.  Whatever  its  condition  it  must  have  been  very 
much  more  dense  toward  the  center.  This  must  have 
been  the  case,  at  least  when  it  existed  within  the  boun- 
daries of  the  present  system.    This  conclusion  is  necessary 


22      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

from  the  sizes  of  the  planets.  If  the  mass  had  been  of 
equal  density  throughout,  and  Uranus  and  Neptune  had 
taken  their  share  of  the  material  they  would  have  taken 
from  three-fourths  to  seven-eights  of  all  the  matter  in 
the  solar  system — %  if  the  nebula  was  diskoid,  %  if 
spherical.  It  was  probably  spheroidal  as  shown  by  the 
satellites  of  Uranus  and  Neptune.  Instead,  however,  of 
having  even  %  of  the  matter  in  the  system,  the  sun  itself 
contains  nearly  10,000  times  as  much  as  they  both  com- 
bined. The  nebula  then  must  have  been  indefinitely  more 
dense  in  its  central  than  in  its  external  portions. 

IV.  It  must  have  rotated  upon  its  axis — at  least  its 
external  portions,  in  about  the  same  time  that  Neptune 
revolves  around  the  sun.  When  it  had  contracted  to  the 
orbit  of  Uranus  it  must  have  increased  its  rate  of  rota- 
tion to  that  of  the  planet  Uranus  in  its  orbit.  And  so  of 
all.  As  it  contracted,  its  rate  of  rotations  must  have 
increased  so  as  to  equal,  successively,  the  orbital  velocities 
of  Saturn,  Jupiter  and  so  on.  The  orbital  velocity  of 
Neptune  is  about  3%  miles  per  second,  that  of  Uranus 
about  4%  miles  per  second.  Contraction  must  have  pro- 
ceeded at  such  a  rate  as  to  have  produced  that  increase 
in  orbital  motion. 

V.  It  then  becomes  a  very  easy  problem  to  ascertain 
the  rate  of  contraction  as  it  is  simply  one  of  resultant 
motion. 

In  the  diagram,  Fig.  1,  if,  say,  a  body  were  moving 
along  the  line  a  ft  at  a  rate  of  20  miles  per  hour  and  some 
other  force  should  drive  it  along  the  line  a  cZ  at  a  rate  of 
10  miles  per  hour  it  would  take  the  direction  a  c  and  its 
rate  could  easily  be  determined.  So  its  impulse  along 
the  line  a  d  could  be  found  if  its  rate  along  a  c  were 
known  and  the  impulse  along  the  line  a  b.    It  would  be 


FIGURE  1 


FIGURE  2 


O^Tusis,  FouTKlation  for  Soignee  and  BeUgion      25 

simply  the  square  root  of  a  c  square  minus  a  b  square. 
The  same  would  be  true  if  the  lines  ah,  ac  and  ed  were 
curved.  This  is  the  ease  under  consideration.  The 
orbital  velocity  of  each  interior  planet  is  the  resultant 
of  the  rate  of  velocity  of  the  planet  next  exterior  and  the 
rate  of  contraction.* 

The  rule  for  determining  this  is,  From  the  square  of 
the  velocity  of  any  interior  planet,  subtract  the  square  of 
the  velocity  of  the  one  next  exterior  and  the  square  root 
of  the  remainder  will  be  the  rate  of  contraction.  Apply- 
ing this  rule  we  find  that  the  time  for  contracting  from 
Neptune  to  Mercury  is  a  little  less  than  25  years. 

VI.     Objections  to  this  view  of  rapid  contraction. 

1st.  It  is  generally  thought  that  if  the  solar  system 
once  existed  as  a  nebula  extending  to  Neptune  it  must 
have  taken  millions  or  billions  of  years  to  contract.  But 
this  long  period  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  radia- 
tion was  never  more  rapid  than  it  is  at  present  from  the 
sun.  This  could  not  have  been  the  case.  It  is  not  con- 
ceivable that  with  a  surface  area  36,000,000  times  the  sur- 
face of  the  sun,  and  a  volume  216,000,000,000  times  that 
of  the  sun,  and  with  its  outer  portions  millions  of  times 
as  tenuous  as  air,  that  it  should  lose  heat  only  at  the  same 
rate  that  the  sun  now  does. 

The  fact  that  gases  do  cool  with  great  rapidity  is  con- 
stantly demonstrated.  The  loud  report  occasioned  by 
explosives  has  been  mentioned.  Cases  also  have  been 
known  in  which  the  walls  of  buildings  have  been  blown 
outward  near  magazine  explosions.  When  the  building 
has  stood  far  enough  away  not  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
explosion  and  yet  near  enough  to  be  influenced  by  it, 

•See  appendix  (a). 


26      Genesis,  Fov/ndation  for  Science  and  Religion 

the  instantaneous  cooling  of  super-heated  gas  has  created 
a  partial  vacuum  and  the  air  inside  of  the  building  has 
expanded  in  consequence  with  sufficient  force  to  cause 
the  walls  to  fall  outward.  The  most  signal  illustration 
of  this  occurred  in  the  explosive  eruption  of  Mt.  Pelee 
in  Martinique.  Immense  quantities  of  super-heated 
steam  or  other  gases  displaced  the  air  and,  instantly 
cooling,  the  bodies  of  men  burst  as  if  instantaneously 
placed  in  vacuum.  Super-heated  gases  cool  with  great 
rapidity. 

Besides,  there  is  hardly  a  possibility  that  the  elements 
were  in  a  gaseous  state  when  they  reached  the  present 
limits  of  the  solar  system.  There  is  hardly  a  probability 
otherwise  than  that  they  existed  as  attenuated  vapor  and 
dust  perhaps  at  an  interstellar  temperature. 

For  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject  see  the  author's 
Suborganic  Evolution. 

VII.  The  thickness  of  the  rings  must  have  been  such 
that  by  the  contraction  they  would  produce  the  satellites 
and  the  axial  rotation  of  the  planets.  The  thicker  the 
ring  or  mass,  the  more  rapid  the  resulting  rotation  and, 
of  course,  the  larger  the  planet,  as  per  Kirkwood^s  law. 
The  great  rapidity,  for  example,  of  Jupiter's  rotation  is 
owing  to  the  greatness  of  its  mass,  which  extended  far 
beyond  its  present  position,  and  the  outside  portions 
moved  with  a  velocity  proportional  to  its  distance.  As  it 
contracted  the  angular  velocity  would  increase,  while 
the  actual  velocity  would  also  be  increased  by  resultant 
motion.  A  seeming  difficulty  in  applying  this  principle 
to  Jupiter's  rotation  only  accentuates  the  rapidity  with 
which  that  planet  assembled  its  elements,  owing  to  the 
greatness  of  its  mass. 

VIII.  The  nebular  masses  forming  the  planets  could 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      27 

not  have  been  of  uniform  density  throughout.  If  they 
had  been,  the  tendency  would  have  been  to  form  meteoric 
dust  or  meteorites,  like  the  rings  of  Saturn. 

IX.  The  original  nebular  mass  must  have  been  inter- 
spersed with  nebular  densities  that  formed  the  centers  of 
the  various  planets  and  satellites.* 

X.  The  contraction  of  the  whole  mass  from  the  ex- 
terior could  not  have  been  continuous,  owing  to  the  much 
greater  density  at  the  center.  This  occasioned  the  rup- 
ture between  Jupiter  and  Mars,  the  fragments  produced 
by  the  rupture  forming  the  planetoids.  The  orbits  of 
these  bodies  confirm  this  idea,  particularly  by  the  greater 
ellipticity  of  those  nearer  the  sun.  These  having  less 
motion  than  those  more  remote,  while  they  would  require 
a  greater  motion,  necessarily  move  in  more  eccentric 
orbits,  their  positions  at  the  moment  of  separation  being 
aphelion. 

XI.  While  the  deposition  of  planetary  nebula  must 
have  been  very  rapid,  the  assembling  of  planetary  ele- 
ments must  have  been  very  slow,  as  each  planetary  mass 
could  have  had  only  the  attractive  power  of  its  own  mass 
for  assembling  its  parts.  No  figures  can  be  made  to  even 
approximate  the  time,  for  so  much  depends  upon  the  un- 
known quantities  of  dispersion,  size  and  position  of 
nuclear  density,  its  physical  condition  and  so  on. 

XII.  Fragments  detached  from  the  main  masses  at 
any  part  of  the  process  form  meteorites  revolving  in 
elliptical  orbits  around  the  Sun. 

XIII.  The  interior  planets  may  be  older,  as  planets, 
than  the  exterior  ones,  as  from  the  increased  density 
of  their  nebular  masses  the  work  of  assembling  would  be 

•See  appendix  (b). 


28      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

relatively  more  rapid ;  still  conditions  unknown  to  us  may 
have  existed. 

THE   FORMATION   OF    THE   SUN 

We  pass  to  consider  the  formation  of  the  Sun.  1st.  Al- 
though this  is  formed  of  the  residue  of  matter  after  the 
planetary  nebulae  had  been  deposited — its  power  to 
assemble  its  constituent  elements  being  so  great  owing  to 
its  comparative  density,  its  great  mass,  its  slight  disper- 
sion and  so  on — it  is  by  far  the  oldest  body,  as  such,  in  the 
solar  system.  If  the  material  composing  it  had  been  of 
perfectly  uniform  tenuity  and  not  gaseous,  after  deposit- 
ing Mercury  its  contraction  would  have  been  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  regulating  the  motion  of  a  body  falling 
through  the  earth,  considering  the  earth  of  uniform  den- 
sity throughout.  The  force  acting  upon  each  portion 
would  be  in  proportion  to  its  distance  from  the  center. 
As  a  pendulum  vibrates  through  a  larger  or  smaller  sec- 
tion of  its  arc  in  the  same  time,  so  portions  of  the  Sun's 
dispersed  mass  would  begin  movement  toward  the  center, 
at  rates  calculated  to  bring  them  all  to  the  center  at  the 
same  time.  Particles  a  mile  from  the  center  would  move 
toward  the  center  with  a  velocity  only  sufficient  to  make 
them  reach  the  center  at  the  same  time  that  portions 
millions  of  miles  from  the  center  would.*  Theoretically 
all  would  be  moving  at  rates  proportional  to  their  dis- 
tances and  all  so  as  to  reach  the  center  at  the  same  time. 
In  this  case,  it  would  seem  that  the  angular  motions  of 
the  parts  would  have  been  practically  uniform,  and  there 
would  have  been  little  tendency  for  other  portions  to  flow 
around  the  interior  portion  except  as  the  actual  velocities 
of  the  outer  portions  were  increased  by  resultant  motion. 

•Appendix  (c). 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      29 

Even  if  the  mass  had  been  of  uniform  density  when  ex- 
tending to  the  orbit  of  Mercury,  there  would  have  been 
some  tendency  for  outer  portions  to  increase  the  angular 
motion  of  rotation  and  flow  around  the  portions  within. 
But  this  tendency  would  have  been  indefinitely  increased 
by  the  fact  that,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  very  much  more 
dense  in  its  central  portions.  This  tendency  must  have 
been  increased,  too,  if  there  had  been  any  gaseous  ele- 
ments in  its  composition.  In  any  event,  precipitation 
would  have  begun  very  early  and  probably  had  begun 
when  the  outside  planetary  masses  were  left.  This  nu- 
cleus, if  rotating  on  its  axis  at  all,  would  have  rotated 
very  slowly,  not  more  rapidly  than  the  whole  mass,  or  once 
in  a  year  of  Neptune,  probably  not  so  fast  as  that.  Then 
as  each  layer  of  matter  was  deposited  on  the  outside  it 
would  be  moving  not  only  with  a  greater  angular  but  with 
a  greater  actual  velocity,  and  every  layer  would  flow 
around  that  within  so  that  had  no  motion  been  imparted 
to  the  inner  portions  by  the  parts  outside,  we  should  have 
the  center  of  the  Sun  revolving  on  its  axis  but  once,  per- 
haps, in  a  hundred  and  fifty  or  more  years,  while  the  out- 
side would  be  revolving  with  a  much  higher  velocity  than 
at  its  present  rate.  Of  course,  if  precipitation  did  not 
begin  at  the  center  of  the  Sun  until  after  Mercury  was 
left,  still  the  core  would  have  revolved  on  its  axis  only 
once  in  a  year  of  Mercury  or  not  so  rapidly  as  that.  Then 
as  precipitation  continued,  each  outer  portion  would 
have  flowed  around  the  parts  interior  to  itself. 

In  figure  2,  (facing  page  22),  suppose  the  whole  body 
to  be  revolving  with  uniform  motion.  S,  the  core  of  the 
Sun,  revolves  in  one  of  Mercury's  years,  and  a  point  as 
A  performs  its  revolution  in  the  same  time.  It  is 
evident  that  as  A  is  twice  as  far  from  the  center  as  M, 


30      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

it  would  have  just  twice  the  actual  though  the  same 
angular  velocity  as  one  at  M.  But  when  by  contraction  it 
reaches  M,  it  will  have  twice  the  angular  velocity  it  had 
at  A  even  if  its  actual  velocity  had  not  been  increased  by 
resultant  motion.  In  other  words  it  would  run  around 
parts  interior.  This  was  the  case  during  the  whole  pro- 
cess of  the  sun's  formation.  The  outside  portions  con- 
tinually flowed  around  the  inner  portions  already  formed. 
A  remnant  of  this  phenomenon  still  appears  in  what  is 
called  the  equatorial  acceleration  of  the  sun's  rotation. 
It  is,  however,  transient  and  will  soon  disappear.  It  was 
thus  that  the  present  writer  accounted  for  this  pheno- 
menon within  a  half  hour  after  learning  of  its  existence 
and  eighteen  months  before  reading  of  the  calculations 
of  Professor  Sampson.  Professor  Sampson's  calculations, 
however,  confirmed  in  a  very  satisfactory  and  conclusive 
way  the  correctness  of  the  author's  own  conclusions. 

But  the  phenomenon  presents  itself  in  a  very  much 
more  wonderful  way  and  with  much  more  conclusive 
proof  as  to  its  origin,  in  the  planet  Jupiter,  and  to  a  less 
extent  in  Saturn.  Professor  Charles  A.  Young  in  his 
text-book  on  astronomy  observes: — ''The  planet  rotates 
on  its  axis  in  about  nine  hours  and  fifty -five  minutes.  The 
time  can  only  be  given  approximately,  not  because  it  is 
difficult  to  find  and  observe  distinct  markings  on  the 
planet's  surface,  but  simply  because  different  results  are 
obtained  from  different  parts  according  to  their  nature 
and  their  distance  from  the  planet's  equator.  Speaking 
generally,  spots  near  the  equator  indicate  a  shorter  day 
than  those  in  higher  latitudes,  and  certain  small,  sharply 
defined,  bright,  white  spots,  such  as  are  often  seen,  give 
a  quicker  rotation  than  the  dark  markings  in  the  same 
latitude.'' 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      31 

Everything  in  this  exactly  accords  with  necessary 
results  if  the  planet  were  formed  by  contraction  from  a 
larger  revolving  gaseous  spheroid  or  nebulous  mass.  As 
condensation  proceeded,  the  outside  portions,  revolving 
not  only  with  a  greater  angular  but  with  a  greater  actual 
velocity,  would  flow  around  the  portions  already  formed. 
The  outside  portions,  which  bear  the  small  white  spots, 
being  partially,  at  least,  transparent,  reveal  the  more 
slowly  moving  portions  within.  The  great  red  spot  was 
an  island  or  huge  mountain  peak  pushed  up  by  internal 
forces  above  the  superincumbent  and  more  rapidly  mov- 
ing layers.* 

The  rotation  near  the  equator  is  also  more  rapid  than 
near  the  poles.  If  the  planet  had  been  diskoidal  the 
phenomenon  would  have  been  much  more  apparent.  But 
it  is  sufficiently  spheroidal  to  make  plainly  apparent  the 
method  of  its  formation. 

This  view  of  the  cause  of  equatorial  acceleration  is  still 
more  wonderfully  confirmed  by  the  facts  contained  in  a 
note  to  the  article  quoted  above. 

** According  to  Williams  there  are  at  least  nine  'belts' 
of  atmospheric  current  on  Jupiter  clearly  distinct  from 
each  other.  The  swiftest,  at  the  equator,  has  a  rotation 
period  of  only  nine  hours,  fifty  minutes,  twenty  seconds, 
while  that  of  the  slowest  is  nine  hours  and  fifty-six  min- 
utes. The  great  red  spot  has  given  values  ranging  from 
9  hrs.  55  min.  34.9  sec.  (in  1879)  to  9  hrs.  55  min.  40.7 
seconds  (in  1886),  and  9  hrs.  55  min.  41.4  sec.  (in  1896). 
The  increase  has  been  unmistakable  and  has  not  been  due 
to  any  uncertainty  in  the  observations. ' '  t 

•See  appendix  (d). 

t  General  Astronomy — ^Young. 


32      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

The  nine  belts  of  rotation  spoken  of  are  not  necessarily 
sharply  defined  and  distinct  from  each  other,  but  grad- 
ually merge  into  each  other. 

The  most  remarkable  thing  in  connection  with  this 
whole  subject  is  the  rapid  diminution  of  relative  velocity 
of  rotation,  or  slowing  of  the  outside  portions  as  their 
momentum  is  imparted  to  the  portions  interior.  Note 
what  is  said  of  the  '* great  red  spot''  and  observe  that 
there  was  a  diminution  in  velocity  of  rotation  of  about  six 
seconds  in  the  7  years  from  79  to  '86  while  the  diminution 
amounted  to  -^  of  a  second  in  the  ten  years  from  '86 
to  '96.  This  indicates  the  rapidly  approaching  end  of 
inequality  of  rotation,  or  the  time  when  the  outer  portions 
will  have  communicated  enough  of  their  own  motion  to 
the  interior  to  make  the  whole  rotate  with  the  same 
angular  velocity  that  the  earth  and  all  the  smaller  planets 
now  do. 

Observe  the  statement  **The  increase  has  been  un- 
mistakable and  is  not  due  to  any  inaccuracy  in  the  ob- 
servations." 

The  same  phenomena  once  presented  themselves  in  all 
the  planets,  probably,  that  are  large  enough  to  have 
passed  from  a  nebulous  through  a  liquid  condition  to 
their  present  condition.  They  may  present  themselves  in 
Uranus  and  Neptune,  but  telescopes  may  not  be  suffi- 
ciently powerful  to  detect  them.  It  is  exceedingly  for- 
tunate that  they  were  detected  in  Jupiter  before  they 
finally  disappeared,  thus  hiding  forever  one  of  the  bright- 
est pages  in  the  history  of  star  formation. 

These  observations  are  made  in  this  place  because  so 
immediately  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  equatorial 
acceleration  of  the  Sun's  rotation. 

Continuing  with  reference  to  the  Sun,  2d,  this  equa- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      33 

torial  current  would  by  friction  produce  some  heat  but  a 
quantity  very  small  in  proportion  to  its  expenditure.  Dr. 
Meyer  calculated  that  a  force  sufScient  to  entirely  stop 
the  Sun 's  rotation  would  produce  only  heat  enough  to  last 
the  Sun  185  years. 

3d.  Precipitation  at  first  would  have  proceeded  very 
slowly.  Not  so  slowly  as  in  the  case  of  the  planets  but 
still  slowly. 

This  will  appear  if  we  consider  (a)  the  mass  as  com- 
posed of  dust  or  vapor.  In  this  case,  according  to  the 
law  of  pendulum  vibration,  parts  near  the  center  would 
move  very  slowly  towards  the  center.  For  example: 
particles  one  mile  from  the  center  would  have  only  a 
sphere  of  gas  or  vapor  two  miles  in  diameter  to  draw 
them  towards  the  center,  and  in  the  condition  of  dust  or 
vapor  their  motion  would  not  be  hastened  by  pressure  of 
portions  outside  them.  If  we  suppose  (b)  that  it  were 
gaseous,  energy  of  compression  would  develop  suflScient 
heat  to  materially  retard  precipitation. 

But  there  is  really  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
nebula 's  temperature  was  much  above  that  of  inter-stellar 
space.  In  that  case  not  enough  heat  could  be  produced 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  condensation  to  have  produced 
luminosity.  For  example,  when  the  nucleus  of  the  Sun 
was  a  ball  a  mile  in  diameter  its  attractive  power  was  but 
its  present  power  at  its  surface  divided  by  its  diameter — 
800,000.  At  present  the  Sun's  attraction  would  cause  a 
body  to  fall  444  feet  per  second.  When  a  mile  in  diameter, 
even  if  its  density  were  the  same  as  now,  it  would  have 
attracted   matter   toward   it   at   the   rate   of    ,,1^*       or 

800,000 

.000555  of  a  foot  per  second.  Very  little  heat  could  be 
produced  by  that  rate  of  motion.  The  center  of  the  Sun 
may  now  be  comparatively  cold  and  solid,  not  yet  having 


34      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

become  superheated  by  conduction  from  its  outer  portion, 
as  the  motion  from  the  outer  portions  has  not  yet  been 
fully  communicated  to  the  interior.*  The  same  may  be 
true  and  probably  is  of  the  earth's  interior.  It  may  be 
cold  and  solid  to  near  the  surface,  where  there  is  a  thin 
layer  of  molten  matter  over  which  is  the  cold  outside 
layer. 

4tlL  The  temperature  would  increase  with  the  increase 
in  size  of  the  forming  body.  The  larger  it  became,  the 
greater  would  be  its  power  of  attraction,  drawing  more 
matter  to  itself  in  a  given  time  and  giving  each  portion  a 
greater  kinetic  effect. 

The  precipitation  of  nebular  densities  would  produce 
seasons  of  greater  liuninosity.  Generally  the  period  of 
greatest  luminosity  would  have  been  towards  the  close 
of  its  formation  period.  Some  variable  stars  may  be 
accounted  for  in  this  way.t  They  are  still  forming.  To 
illustrate,  consider  a  possible  contingency  in  the  forma- 
tion of  our  own  system.  If  the  nebulous  masses  that 
formed  the  planets  of  our  own  system  had  not  been  mov- 
ing with  sufficient  velocity  to  prevent  it,  each  one  would 
have  been  precipitated  upon  the  Sun,  successively  pro- 
ducing seasons  of  greater  luminosity  until  the  outmost 
one  had  fallen  upon  the  sun. 

In  this  case  the  seasons  of  greater  luminosity  would 
have  succeeded  each  other  with  but  short  intervals.  The 
inter-stellar  spaces,  however,  are  so  vast  that  a  distant 
sun  may  have  its  brilliancy  increased  by  the  precipitation 
of  nebular  masses  or  stellar  bodies  that  it  has  been  years 
or  hundreds  of  years  in  drawing  to  itself.    The  increased 

♦See  appendix  (e). 
tSee  appendix  (f). 


6$n§tu,  Foundation  far  8oi§no€  and  IhUg4on      35 

brilliancy  of  Nova  Persei  as  well  as  that  of  many  other 
variable  stars  was  undoubtedly  owing  to  this  cause. 

5th.  Can  the  system  ever  return  to  a  nebulous  con- 
dition by  heat  generated  by  the  precipitation  of  planets 
into  the  Sun  ?  The  theory  used  to  be  advanced  that  pos- 
sibly the  precipitation  of  planets  into  the  Sun  might  suffi- 
ciently raise  the  temperature  to  restore  the  system  to  a 
nebula  again,  to  undergo  changes  such  as  it  has  perhaps 
passed  through.  But  (a)  the  succession  of  shocks  would 
be  at  such  long  intervals  that  the  heat  produced  by  one 
would  be  dispersed  before  the  next  one,  and  if  it  were 
possible  for  all  the  planets  to  strike  the  Sun  at  the  same 
time,  there  would  not  probably  be  the  millionth  part  of 
the  necessary  amount  of  heat  produced  for  such  an  effect. 

Again  such  an  accidental,  so  to  speak,  expansion  could 
no  more  produce  the  solar  system  by  contraction  than 
throwing  a  handful  of  dust  into  the  air  would  produce  a 
watch. 

If  any  one  of  a  vast  number  of  circumstances  in  the 
beginning  had  been  different,  results  would  have  been 
different.  It  would  be  impossible  for  any  accident  to 
reproduce  those  circumstances  such  as  rate  of  rotation, 
size  and  position  of  nebular  densities,  extent  of  disper- 
sion of  nebulous  masses,  and  so  on.  Note  one  particular, 
rate  of  rotation.  A  point  on  the  surface  of  the  Sun  now 
moves  at  the  rate  of  about  a  mile  per  second.  If  it  were 
to  expand  to  the  orbit  of  Mercury,  it  would  have  to  have 
its  velocity  increased  to  29  miles  per  second  in  order  by 
contraction  to  again  deposit  that  planet.  This  illustrates 
the  case  of  all.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  precipitation 
of  a  planet  would  necessarily  be  upon  one  side  of  the  Sun 
near  the  equator  and  this  would  naturally  tend  to  ac- 
celerate its  rotation.    That  is  very  true,  but  the  answer 


36      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

is  apparent.  Every  pound  of  energy  expended  in  the 
production  of  motion  is  lost  for  the  production  of  heat, 
and  any  planet  is  so  small  as  compared  with  the  Sun  that 
if  all  the  energy  of  its  fall  were  expended  in  accelerating 
the  Sun's  rotation  and  none  at  all  for  the  production  of 
heat,  it  would  produce  an  unappreciable  fraction  of  the 
required  motion. 

The  same  is  true  of  all  of  them  put  together.  How, 
then,  could  they  produce  the  necessary  heat  and  motion 
both? 

**The  Sun  is  but  a  spark  of  fire, 
A  transient  meteor  of  the  sky.*' 

There  was  a  beginning,  there  must  also  be  an  end  of 
the  present  order  of  things. 

OBJECTIONS 

It  may  be  well  to  consider  a  few  objections  that  may 
be  urged  against  the  possibility  of  the  hypothesis.  Many 
have  been  urged  which  a  moment's  consideration  at  once 
disposes  of.     Some  are  not  so  easily  answered. 

1st.  There  are  many  nebulae  now  that  are  not  under- 
going any  such  changes  as  contemplated  above.  But  the 
answer  is,  they  were  differently  constituted.  Some  may 
be  undergoing  changes  very  slowly,  others  more  rapidly. 

2d.  The  motions  of  the  satellites  of  the  outermost 
planets  of  the  system.  These  motions  only  argue  a  more 
spherical  form  for  the  nebula  than  it  afterwards  assumed 
as  rate  of  rotation  increased,  also  that  the  original  nuclear 
densities  were  farther  removed  from  the  plane  of  the 
planets'  orbits. 

3d.  The  action  of  Phobos,  the  inner  moon  of  Mars, 
that  rises  in  the  west  and  sets  in  the  east.    The  revolu- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      37 

tion  of  that  satellite  is  more  rapid  than  the  axial  rotation 
of  the  planet,  that  is,  it  passes  around  the  planet  in  less 
time  than  the  planet  turns  upon  its  axis.  This,  of  course, 
is  well  known.  But  the  comparatively  slow  rotation  of 
the  planet  (only,  however,  a  little  slower  than  the 
earth's)  is  owing  to  the  relatively  greater  mass  of  the 
nebular  density  that  formed  not  only  the  nucleus  but  a 
large  portion  of  the  planet.  It  is  only  an  evidence  for 
the  author's  view  that  such  densities  must  have  existed. 
Every  such  density  before  separation  from  the  parent 
mass  rotated  on  its  axis  once  during  its  rotation  around 
the  Sun. 

Any  additional  velocity  arises  both  directly  from  con- 
traction and  indirectly  by  resultant  motion  from  that 
contraction. 

The  greater  and  denser  the  central  mass,  rotating 
slowly,  the  greater  the  resistance  to  the  forces  that  would 
accelerate  it,  coming  from  the  more  swiftly  moving  but 
much  lighter  outside  portions.  The  outside  portions  of 
the  Sun,  Jupiter  and  Saturn  are  all  moving  more  slowly 
than  they  once  did,  for  they  are  and  have  been  imparting 
motion  to  interior  parts.  The  interior  parts  are  rotating 
with  a  higher  velocity  for  they  have  been  receiving  that 
motion.  With  Mars,  the  original  slowly  rotating  center 
was  so  comparatively  great  that,  after  receiving  all  the 
motion  that  the  outside  tenuous  portions  could  impart, 
its  rotation  was  only  increased  to  its  present  rate. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  axial  rotation 
of  Mars  has  been  retarded.  It  simply  has  not  been  more 
accelerated.  We  have  a  suggestion  as  to  the  condition  in 
the  small  white  spots  op  Jupiter.  They  move  more 
rapidly  than  the  rest  of  the  planet,  and  if  there  were 
no  visible  connection  between  them  and  the  planet,  they 


38      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

would  seem  to  be  satellites  revolving  around  it  in  a 
shorter  period  than  the  planet's  axial  rotation. 

They  would  seem  to  rise  in  the  west  and  set  in  the  east. 
The  same  would  be  true  of  a  body  at  the  equatorial  sur- 
face of  the  Sun  or  Saturn.  The  case  of  Mars  and  Phobos 
is  but  the  same  condition  magnified.  When  the  nebulous 
mass  that  formed  Mars  and  its  satellites  extended  to 
Deimos — its  outer  moon — the  outside  was  revolving  with 
sufficient  rapidity  to  deposit  that  moon,  i.  e.  in  30  hrs.  18 
min.  But  the  center  may  not  have  rotated  with  the  same 
angular  velocity,  any  more  than  that  of  the  Sun  or 
Jupiter  or  Mars  now  does. 

When  it  contracted  to  the  orbit  of  Phobos,  the  outside 
again  may  have  rotated  and  did  rotate  with  the  velocity 
with  which  that  moon  now  moves.  But  the  main  central 
mass  may  not  have  revolved  in  less  than  thirty  or  forty 
hours.  The  precipitation  of  the  rapidly  moving  but  very 
tenuous  outside  portion  would  have  increased  the  rotation 
to  its  present  rate. 

It  offers  no  obstacle  to  the  hypothesis.  In  fact,  so  far  as 
known  there  is  no  insuperable  objection  to  the  theory, 
but  every  circumstance  that  has  seemed  to  present  diffi- 
culties has,  upon  examination,  only  revealed  some  addi- 
tional conditions,  and  thus  enlarged  our  knowledge  of 
what  the  original  conditions  must  have  been.  Before  the 
peculiar  rotation  of  the  Sun,  of  Jupiter  and  probably 
Saturn  was  discovered,  it  is  said  that  astronomers  had 
pointed  out  something  like  three  hundred  remarkable 
coincidences  that  could  not  well  be  accounted  for  upon 
any  other  supposition  than  that  the  entire  solar  system 
had  developed  from  a  parent  mass  of  attenuated  dust, 
**  emptiness, ' '  **  vacancy."  The  recently  discovered 
peculiarity  in  the  axial  rotation  of  the  Sun,  Jupiter  and 


OenesiSf  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      39 

probably  Saturn  affords  the  final,  and,  as  it  may  well 
be  considered,  conclusive  proof  that  the  original  condi- 
tion of  the  earth  was  tohu,  bohu.  At  least  it  carries  the 
evidence  to  an  exceedingly  high  degree  of  probability, 
and  such  a  probability  as  does  not  exist  with  reference  to 
any  other  theory. 

Some  conclusions  necessarily  f oUow : 

Ist.  No  unaided  human  being  could  have  known  the 
circumstances  and  have  described  them  so  tersely  and 
accurately.  The  words  in  Gen.  1 :2  were  written  centuries 
before  modern  science  was  bom  or  men  had  dreamed  of 
the  nebular  hypothesis.  Hence  the  narrative  must  have 
been  inspired.  The  One  who  made  the  worlds  alone  could 
have  imparted  a  knowledge  of  His  methods  to  the  one  who 
wrote  the  account. 

2d.  The  matter  must  have  been  created  very  near  the 
time  the  planetary  masses  were  deposited.  There  is  no 
conceivable  theory  as  to  the  eternal  existence  of  matter 
as  such  that  can  stand  a  moment's  investigation.  It  is 
true  that  the  potentiality  of  matter  existed  from  eternity 
in  the  personality  of  the  Creator,  but  it  did  not  assume 
the  form  of  matter  until  He  willed  it.  The  modern  veri- 
fication of  Newton's  theory  of  matter  makes  it  inde- 
finitely easier  to  conceive  of  creation  than  when  the  old 
ideas  prevailed.  At  least  that  is  true  of  those  who  admit 
the  existence  of  a  Creator. 

3d.  The  creation  must  have  been  comparatively 
recent.  The  sun  is  the  oldest  globe  in  the  solar  system 
and  Jupiter,  owing  to  its  mass,  assembled  its  material 
so  rapidly  that  it  may  be  the  next  oldest,  or  at  least  it 
cannot  be  far  from  it.  But  neither  of  them  has  existed 
as  a  globe  long  enough  for  their  motions  to  become  equal- 
ized, so  but  that  the  outer  portions  still  flow  around 


40      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

the  interior  parts.  This  idea  of  the  recency  of  creation 
makes  the  fact  of  creation  more  visible  to  our  minds, 
more  real. 

Owing  to  the  limitations  of  our  minds  a  fact  seems  to 
dissolve  or  lose  its  force  as  a  fact  if  pushed  too  far  back 
in  the  infinite  past.  The  fact  of  creation  is  not  so  remote 
as  to  lose  its  force  as  a  fact.  It  is  a  thing  of  yesterday. 
It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  Jupiter's  rotation  could  have 
been  such  that  for  thousands  of  years  its  equatorial  rota- 
tion could  have  been  retarding  and  that  some  of  its  ac- 
celeration should  remain.  But  it  is  hardly  conceivable 
that  this  could  have  been  going  on  for  millions  of  years. 
The  estimates  as  to  the  age  of  the  earth  have  of  late  been 
decreasing,  and  yet  they  are  probably  too  large.  They 
seem  to  be  based  upon  the  supposition  that  the  disin- 
tegrating and  erosive  agencies  were  never  more  active 
than  at  present,  and  that  the  rocks  were  never  softer 
than  they  are  now.  But  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
such  suppositions  must  be  incorrect.  For  instance,  it  is 
not  conceivable  that  Niagara  was  not  more  active  when 
the  vast  inland  sea,  of  which  the  Great  Lakes  are  the 
remaining  puddles,  was  draining  off  and  pouring  its 
waters  toward  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  as  well  as  toward 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

Then  as  to  the  rocks.  The  fact  of  their  being  sedimen- 
tary presupposes  a  former  soft  condition  like  a  sand 
bank,  in  which  erosion  is  easy.  It  is  certainly  suppos- 
able  that  when  portions  of  the  continents  first  emerged 
from  the  waters,  they  were  still  soft  and  easily  worn 
away.  The  grand  canons  of  the  Colorado  may  have  been 
cut  under  circumstances  in  which  a  few  decades  would 
accomplish  more  than  millions  of  years  in  present  cir- 
cumstances.    But  without  dwelling  upon  the  evidences 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      41 

in  geology,  those  in  astronomy  point  unmistakably  to  the 
comparative  recency  of  creation. 

4th.  Another  conclusion  is  that,  as  the  writer  of  these 
words  in  Genesis  seemed  to  utter  a  truth,  it  is  eminently 
probable  that  the  first  statement  is  true,  '*In  the  begin- 
ning God/'  There  is  a  practically  infinite  probability 
that  the  earth  was  ** emptiness,  vacancy,''  and  the 
probability  that  the  writer  knew  what  he  wrote  makes  it 
probable  that  he  also  knew  that  **in  the  beginning  Gtod" 
created.  The  first  declaration  in  Gen.  1:2  is  pregnant 
with  immeasurable  meaning,  and  the  religious  world  can 
never  discharge  its  debt  of  gratitude  to  science  for  turn- 
ing its  search  light  upon  it  and  enabling  men  to  read  that 
meaning. 

The  next  declaration  is,  ^^And  darkness  was  upon  the 
face  of  the  deep. ' '  In  any  rational  view  of  this  chapter 
we  must  admit  that  the  writer  takes  no  account  of  time 
and  that  the  word  **day"  refers  to  a  period  of  time.  The 
sequence  at  least  is  orderly.  After  the  globe  had  formed, 
without  reference  to  time,  *  *  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of 
the  deep."  It  is  hardly  possible  that  our  globe  as  such 
could  ever  have  presented  a  luminous  appearance.  The 
entire  surface  was  enveloped  by  a  layer  of  water  ten 
thousand  feet  deep.  While  the  ball  was  hot  this  could 
only  have  existed  as  an  envelope  of  superheated  steam, 
and  this  again  surrounded  by  an  outer  covering  of  vapor- 
ous clouds  formed  by  radiating  their  heat  into  outer 
space.  To  an  outsider,  our  planet  would  have  presented 
the  appearance  of  a  ball  of  clouds  which  light  could  not 
penetrate  either  from  within  or  from  without.  And  this 
emphasizes  again  the  extreme  rapidity  of  the  cooling 
process.    Every  one  knows  that  water  poured  upon  a  hot 


42      Oenesis^  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

surface  will  absorb  heat  with  great  rapidity,  carry  it  off 
and  lose  it  by  radiation. 

This  would  be  the  process  in  the  case  under  considera- 
tion. A  mass  of  steam  and  vapor  enough  to  make,  when 
condensed  and  precipitated,  a  layer  of  water  ten  thou- 
sand feet  deep  was  the  medium  for  conveying  the  heat 
from  the  surface  to  outer  space.  As  the  temperature 
diminished  the  water  would  gradually  remain  as  such 
and  accumulate  to  form  seas,  while  dense  clouds  of  vapor 
would  still  overhang  the  earth.  There  was  a  '^deep" 
and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  it,  and  too,  at  first  it 
covered  the  whole  globe.  There  was  a  time  when  there 
was  no  dry  land.  The  declaration  then,  ' '  And  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep, ' '  expresses  a  fact  which 
is  abundantly  substantiated.  The  appearance  of  light 
and  day  as  opposed  to  night  before  mention  of  the  sun 
presents  no  difficulty,  for  that  would  be  the  necessary 
order.  The  account  is  written  from  the  view  point  of 
the  earth's  surface.  After  the  earth's  surface  had 
cooled  sufficiently  for  the  main  portion  of  the  waters  to 
remain  in  contact  with  the  solid  matter,  the  cooling  pro- 
cess would  be  much  slower  and  perhaps  for  ages  the 
earth  would  be  enveloped  with  clouds  of  vapor  dense 
enough  to  completely  hide  the  sun,  as  a  body,  and  yet 
admit  sufficient  light  to  distinguish  between  day  and 
night. 

Indeed  the  theory  that  this  was  the  condition  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Noachian  deluge  is  not  entirely  without 
foundation.  It  may  be  that  the  sun  never  penetrated  the 
clouds  sufficiently  to  form  a  rainbow  until  that  flood  sub- 
sided, and  that  the  hot  house  condition  then  existing  ac- 
counted for  the  long  life  of  the  antediluvians.  This 
theory,  however,  is  not  essential  to  the  present  conten- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      43 

tion.  It  is  sufficient  that  day  and  night  could  have  suc- 
ceeded each  other  for  some  time  before  the  heavenly 
bodies,  as  such,  were  distinguishable.  The  writer  has 
lived  for  years  where  the  mists,  rising  from  Lake  Michi- 
gan, have  clouded  the  sky  and  obscured  the  sun  for  weeks 
at  a  time,  and  for  months  it  would  only  occasionally 
break  through.  It  could  not  have  been  otherwise  than 
that  for  ages,  perhaps,  the  sky  was  overcast  with  clouds 
so  as  to  hide  the  sun  and  yet  day  and  night  be  perfectly 
distinguishable.  **  There  was  evening  and  there  was 
morning,  one  day.*'  Evening  was  mentioned  first  for 
darkness  preceded  the  light. 

With  reference  to  the  word  *'day,"  but  little  need  be 
said,  for  it  has  been  the  opinion  of  many  scholars  and 
theologians  from  the  time  of  Augustine  that  the  word 
refers  to  a  period  of  time  rather  than  to  a  twenty-four 
hour  day.  With  regard  to  the  ** firmament,"  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Hebrew  word  rakia  is  expanse,  expansion. 
Whatever  its  derivation,  or  whatever  other  meanings  it 
may  have,  the  meaning  here  is  apparent  for  one  thing 
from  the  statement  in  the  20th  verse,  **and  fowl  that  may 
fly  in  the  midst  of  the  firmament.'*  It  is  as  correct  and 
expressive  of  the  trath  as  any  scientific  term  that  could 
be  invented  at  the  present  day.  And  when  the  writer 
speaks  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  being  *'set  in  the  firma- 
ment of  the  heaven ' '  candor  requires  us  to  think  that  he 
uses  the  words  popularly  as  we  speak  correctly  of  'Hhe 
stars  of  the  sky. ' ' 

The  emerging  of  the  continent  from  the  water  is  next 
described,  and  it  is  necessarily  next  in  geological  order. 
The  fact  that  the  waters  once  covered  the  whole  surface 
of  the  earth  and  that  the  land  emerged  from  them  is  a 
geological  truth  that  needs  only  to  be  mentioned. 


44      Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

The  appearance  of  grass  is  next  mentioned.  The  fact 
that  geology  has  few  records  of  the  'Hender  grass" 
(Hebrew)  is  not  surprising  for  it  could  hardly  exist  as 
fossils.  So  of  the  herb  and  fruit  trees.  However,  the 
Algae  appears  as  far  back  as  the  Eozoon,  or  first  form  of 
animal  life.  The  term  ''fruit  tree"  does  not  necessarily 
mean  the  apple,  pear,  plum  and  other  trees  now  speci- 
fically designated  by  that  term.  It  may  even  refer  to 
some  of  the  vegetation  that  formed  our  coal  measures. 
However  this  may  be,  vegetable  life  must  have  preceded 
animal  life  as  the  record  in  Genesis  states.  All  these 
could  have  flourished  before  the  heavenly  bodies  as  such 
could  have  been  seen  from  the  earth's  surface. 

With  regard  to  the  appearance  of  these  heavenly 
bodies,  as  before  stated  the  narrative  seems  to  have 
contemplated  the  earth's  surface  as  the  writer's  stand- 
point. The  sun,  moon  and  stars  would  be  mentioned 
when  first  seen.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  infer  that  the 
writer  even  thought  that  they  were  not  created  until 
that  time.  The  statement  is  simply  ' '  God  said,  Let  there 
be  lights  in  the  firmament"  and  so  on,  followed  by  the 
declaration,  ' '  God  made  two  great  lights  ....  He 
made  the  stars  also. ' '  This  view  is  sustained  by  the  fact 
that  the  writer  does  not  use  the  Hebrew  word  hara 
(create)  but  asak  (to  make).  In  the  beginning  God  cre- 
ated the  heavens  and  the  heavenly  bodies.  At  this  junc- 
ture He  made  them  to  appear,  or  in  time  He  may  refer  to 
a  remote  past. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Origin  of  Life  as  Described  in  Genesis  and  Recorded 
in  the  Rocks 

THE  next  period  introduces  animal  life.  This 
together  with  that  of  vegetable  life  and  that 
of  man  requires  a  more  extended  study.  The 
first  inquiry  is  concerning  what  Genesis  ac- 
tually teaches  as  to  the  origin  of  life  and  then  how 
that  teaching  is  corroborated  in  nature.  There  is  first 
the  statement  that  **Gk)d  created  {hara)  great  sea  mon- 
sters/' and  also  God  created  {bara)  man  in  His  own 
image.  *^In  the  image  of  (Jod  created  {bara)  he  him." 
The  same  word  is  used  with  reference  to  both  Adam  and 
Eve,  **in  the  image  of  God  created  (bara)  he  them." 
This  statement  is  made  twice  with  reference  to  both.  The 
same  word  is  employed  eight  times  in  Genesis  with  refer- 
ence to  the  human  race  and  eight  times  in  other  parts  of 
the  scriptures,  where  it  is  translated  ** create,  created," 
and  once  where  it  (bara)  is  translated  **made,"  as  in 
Ps.  89 :47,  *  *  Wherefore  hast  thou  made  all  men. ' ' 

With  reference  to  the  lower  forms  of  life  we  read, 
**And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass"  and  so 
on,  (Gen.  1:11,  12).  And  again,  ''Let  the  waters  bring 
forth  abundantly"  and  so  on.  The  word  ''create"  is  not 
here  used,  but  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  104:30  and  148:5)  uses 
the  word  bara  with  reference  to  practically  all  of  God's 
works.  They  came  into  being  at  the  fiat  of  God.  But  it 
may  be  urged  that  this  may  refer  only  to  the  fact  of 
creation  and  not  to  the  mode,  and  that  mode  may  be 
gradual  development,  as  the  solar  system  was  created 

45 


46      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

and  yet  took  ages  for  its  completion.  The  analogy,  how- 
ever, could  hold  only  as  far  as  the  development  of  grass, 
herbs  and  trees  from  the  seed  is  concerned,  or  the 
''swarmers"  from  the  ova  without  a  transmutation  of 
species.  The  apparent  meaning  seems  to  be  that  grass 
was  created  as  grass,  herbs  as  herbs,  trees  as  trees,  the 
sea  ''swarmers''  as  such,  and  that  the  creation  form  was 
the  terminal  form.  That  is  the  popular  understanding 
of  these  words  and  that  is  the  way  the  great  naturalist, 
Charles  Darwin,  understood  the  narrative.  But  he 
believed  in  that  system  of  phylogenetic  zoology  popularly 
known  as  evolution.  Considering  this  system  of  zoology 
as  merely  modal,  the  narrative  in  Genesis  is  correct 
whichever  view  is  taken.  Were  it  not  for  the  vast  struc- 
tures of  philosiphy,  history,  theology,  and  Christology 
that  are  built  upon  the  evolutionary  theory  the  distinc- 
tion would  be  worthy  of  but  little  thought.  But  in  view 
of  such  structures  as  are  based  upon  this  distinction  it 
becomes  necessary  to  examine  briefly  the  subject  and 
claims  of  Organic  Evolution. 

ORGANIC    EVOLUTION 

In  speaking  of  Evolution  in  general  we  are  confronted 
with  the  indefiniteness  of  the  term  as  commonly  used. 
It  may  mean  little  or  it  may  mean  a  great  deal.  There 
are  three  main  divisions  of  the  thought  as  commonly  ex- 
pressed by  the  word,  the  sub-organic,  the  organic,  and 
the  super-organic.  The  first  refers  to  the  development  of 
matter  without  life  to  different  forms  and  is  applied 
generally  to  the  formation  of  the  solar  or  stellar  systems 
from  some  more  crude  conditions  of  matter.  This  has 
already  been  referred  to  in  a  few  words.* 

♦Above,  Nebular  Hypothesis. 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      47 

Organic  Evolution  is  the  name  for  a  process,  real  or 
imaginary,  of  derivations  or  development  of  the  forms 
of  life,  vegetable  and  animal  that  have  existed  or  that 
now  exist  in  the  world. 

Superorganic  Evolution  refers  to  the  same  process  in 
metaphysical  spheres.  At  present  we  have  to  do  only  with 
organic  evolution.  But  here,  even  in  this  restricted  ap- 
plication of  the  word,  the  widest  divergence  of  opinion  as 
to  the  use  of  the  term  prevails.  It  is  applied  to  the 
ordinary  growth  of  a  vegetable  from  a  seed,  the  hatch- 
ing of  a  chick  from  an  egg  or  the  change  of  a  tadpole 
to  a  frog.  It  is  applied  also  to  the  gradual,  progressive 
developments  made  without  interference  from  without, 
but  by  its  own  inherent  potentiality,  of  some  primordial 
germ  to  all  the  varied  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal  life 
that  have  existed  on  the  globe.  Between  these  two  ex- 
tremes there  exist  almost  as  many  degrees  of  thought  as 
there  are  men  who  receive  the  hypothesis.  Some  admit 
but  one  or  at  least  but  very  few  starting  points  for  the 
upward  movement,  some  admit  more.  There  seems  to 
be  no  one  very  definite  consensus  of  opinion  regarding 
the  number  of  creation  centers,  to  use  a  theistic  evolu- 
tionist's phrase. 

Further  than  this  the  term  is  also  applied  to  a  mere 
category  of  thought  without  reference  to  material  deve- 
lopment. 

Further  still  it  is  thought  of  as  Causal,  or  modal,  that 
is  as  the  Cause  of  all  life,  or  as  but  the  mode  by  which  a 
personal  Creator  has  brought  about  the  diversified  formjs 
of  life.  In  other  words  it  is  thought  of  as  atheistic  or 
theistic. 

•Above,  Nebular  Hypothesis. 


48      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

CAUSAL  EVOLUTION 

At  this  point  we  may  consider  the  probabilities  that 
all  the  advance  in  the  universe  has  been  in  accordance 
with  laws  and  by  forces  inherent  in  themselves  inde- 
pendently of  any  exterior  power  or  Great  First  Cause. 

If  we  were  to  admit  that  the  solar  system  has  never 
existed  in  any  other  than  its  present  form,  that  the  sun 
has  always  had  its  present  form,  that  the  earth  and  other 
planets  had  never  existed  in  any  other  form,  it  would 
be  comparatively  easy  to  believe  that  they  could  have 
existed  in  their  present  form  from  Eternity.  The  sun's 
continued  luminosity  would  be  the  only  thing  to  account 
for  and  many  various  theories  have  been  advanced  to 
do  this.  One  could  look  upon  the  earth  and  say  that  it 
had  existed  just  as  it  is  from  all  Eternity,  and  so  of 
celestial  objects,  but  when  we  admit  as  true  a  declaration 
from  writings  that  are  at  least  entitled  to  our  respect, 
**The  earth  was  .without  form  and  void,''  all  this  is 
changed.  There  is  no  possibility  that  changes  like  those 
we  have  been  contemplating  could  have  been  going  on 
from  a*  past  eternity.  There  must  have  been  a  beginning, 
and  judging  from  the  condition  of  the  sun,  the  planet 
Jupiter  and  Saturn  and  perhaps  others,  that  beginning 
was  quite  recent.  There  is  no  possibility  that  the  solar 
system  could  have  been  undergoing  changes  according 
to  a  thepry  of  self-perpetuating  metamorphoses.  This 
has  been  considered.  The  space  now  occupied  by  the 
solar  system  could  not  have  been  filled  from  eternity  with 
the  dust  vapor  or  gas  that  never  responded  to  the  power 
of  gravitation  or  cohesion  until  within  recent  years. 

Nothing  in  the  universe  more  clearly  points  to  a  begin- 
ning than  the  solar  system,  when  conceived  of  as  having 
once  existed  in  the  form  described  in  Gen.  1 :  2.    There 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      49 

is  no  theory  as  to  the  eternity  of  the  matter  in  the  solar 
system  more  tenable  than  that  a  quantity  measured  by  a 
mathematical  zero  could  contain  within  itself  the  power 
to  multiply  itself  to  infinity.  Granted  a  beginning  and 
a  priori  it  is  as  reasonable  to  predicate  a  Cause  for  that 
beginning  as  to  suppose  that  a  universe  sprang  of  its 
own  accord  from  nothingness.  But  aside  from  this  and 
aside  from  the  declaration  in  any  writings  extant,  there 
are  collateral  and  direct  evidences  of  such  a  great  First 
Cause.  We  may  dismiss  as  sufficiently  understood  the 
first  group  of  collateral  evidences  such  as  the  cosmo- 
logical,  ontological,  teleological,  moral  and  so  on,  and 
consider  as  matter  of  scientific  value  a  direct,  personal, 
and  positive  knowledge  of  such  a  Cause.  And  in  this 
connection  this  subject  is  introduced  not  as  a  matter  of 
sentiment,  emotion  or  religion  but  as  a  matter  of  inestim- 
able value  to  the  scientist  who  would  go  deeper  than  a 
mere  supei'ficial  knowledge  of  phenomena.* 

A  knowledge  of  such  a  Cause  is  as  essential  to  knowing 
nature  as  a  knowledge  of  steam  is  to  an  engineer.  We 
may  imagine  a  man  who  knows  something  of  machinery 
watching  the  movements  of  the  piston  rod  of  a  great  en- 
gine. He  sees  and  recognizes  the  relations  of  other  parts 
of  the  machinery  to  the  piston  rod,  but  positively 
refuses  to  admit  that  there  is  any  power  or  anything  that 
exerts  power  in  the  cylinder.  It  is  the  nature  of  the 
piston  rod  to  move  back  and  forth  and  the  development 

•The  writers  (or  scientists?)  who  have  criticised  the 
late  Lord  Kelvin  for  inferentially  admitting  the  exist- 
ence of  a  First  Cause  display  a  superficiality  that  would 
invalidate  any  of  their  own  conclusions  reached  by 
original  investigation. 


50      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  "Religion 

of  its  power  is  an  accident.  He  goes  to  see  an  experi- 
mental engine  in  which  the  cylinder  is  of  glass  so  that 
he  can  see  the  interior.  Then  he  knows  that  there  is 
nothing  to  move  the  piston  back  and  forth  but  that  it 
moves  because  it  is  its  nature  to  do  so.  He  can  see  the 
head  of  the  cylinder,  the  piston  rod  and  all  there  is,  and 
there  is  nothing  there.  He  might  have  considerable 
knowledge  of  machinery,  but  if  his  prejudice  against  the 
fact  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  steam  should  prevent 
his  taking  any  steps  to  find  out  about  it,  he  could  hardly 
find  employment  as  an  engineer  where  any  great  interests 
were  at  stake.  Not  that  he  might  not  know  what  levers 
to  pull  or  what  joints  to  oil,  or  what  other  routine  motions 
to  make,  but  the  fact  that  prejudice  prevents  his  obtain- 
ing a  knowledge  of  something  intimately  connected  with 
his  business  when  that  knowledge  was  clearly  and  easily 
within  his  reach  would  argue  a  mind  unbalanced  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  render  him  unfit  for  responsible  positions. 
Nature  is  such  an  engine,  with  a  great  invisible  Cause  at 
work  first  to  produce  it,  then  to  work  through  it. 

That  Cause  is  knowable  as  to  fa<5t,  though  unknowable 
in  the  infinite  reaches  of  his  being.  Here  we  stand  on 
solid  ground,  that  of  absolute  knowledge.  There  is  no 
use  of  mincing  words  or  making  concessions  to  the  un- 
belief of  those  who  have  never  sought  to  know  that  Cause 
by  methods  adapted  to  the  nature  of  the  subject.  Adapta- 
tion to  the  nature  of  the  subject  investigated  is  always 
essential.  One  could  not  find  the  moons  of  Jupiter  by 
the  methods  of  the  alchemist  nor  microbes  by  astronomy. 
The  methods  of  investigation  must  be  adapted  to  the 
subject  investigated.  There  may  once  have  been  an  in- 
stinct in  every  human  being  that  could  direct  him  to  the 
right  methods  of  investigation  in  order  to  find  that  cause. 


Otnesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      51 

At  any  rate  there  is  a  hint  contained  in  a  book  within  the 
reach  of  all  that  will  start  one  right,  * '  Then  shall  ye  find 
me  when  ye  shall  search  for  me  with  all  your  heart/'* 
This  is  but  the  requirement  for  the  successful  pursuit  of 
science  along  any  line.  The  moral  nature  must  be  such 
as  to  insure  candor  in  the  investigation,  the  will  must  be 
in  such  an  attitude  as  to  accept  results.  The  only  differ- 
ence is  that  in  searching  for  the  great  First  Cause  more 
depends  upon  the  attitude  of  the  will  and  condition  of  the 
moral  nature  than  in  the  search  for  lower  objects.  But 
no  man  has  ever  complied  with  the  prescribed  conditions 
who  has  not  found  God  as  an  objective  fact  and  the 
master  fact  of  the  universe.  As  stated  before,  he  may 
not,  cannot,  know  Him  in  the  infinite  reaches  of  his  being 
but  he  may  know  him  as  a  fact  and  enough  of  him  for  his 
own  practical  needs.  One  may  know  the  fact  of  the 
Mississippi  river,  and  enough  of  it  to  supply  him  with 
drinking  water  and  to  row  his  boat  upon,  and  yet  not 
have  explored  it  from  its  mouth  to  the  source  of  all  its 
tributaries.  So  one  may  know  (Jod  as  a  fact  and  enough 
of  Him  to  supply  all  his  needs  and  yet  not  know  all  about 
Him.  But  this  knowledge  may  increase.  **Then  shall 
we  know  if  we  follow  on  to  know  the  Lord."t  This 
knowledge  of  a  fact  and  as  a  fact  vitally  connected  with 
all  we  know  of  nature  has  never  been  sufficiently  em- 
phasized. Men  are  apt  to  tread  softly,  and  speak  tem- 
porizingly  and  make  concessions,  and  be  very  uncertain 
when  the  fact  is  questioned.  It  need  not  be  so.  One  may 
speak  positively  when  he  says  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a 
central  sun  in  the  solar  system,  though  some  blind  men 

•Jer.  29:13. 
tHos.  6:3. 


52      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

may  say  that  they  do  not  know  it  and  it  is  unknowable. 
The  sun  as  an  objective  fact  is  known  by  millions  of 
people,  and  known  as  independent  of  the  cognitions  of 
any  man  or  set  of  men.  God  as  an  objective  fact  exists 
and  is  known  by  millions  of  men  and  as  an  objective  fact 
exists  independently  of  the  cognitions  of  any  subjective 
'^ego.'' 

If  any  one  is  ignorant  of  that  fact  or  in  doubt  with 
reference  to  that  fact,  it  is  because  he  has  never  pursued 
an  investigation  adapted  to  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
and  is  ignorant  of  the  fact  most  intimately  connected  with 
everything  that  can  be  known.  And  this  fact  corroborates 
a  statement  not  only  that  there  was  a  beginning  to  the 
cosmos,  but  in  the  beginning  ^ '  God, '  ^  and  we  may  carry 
out  the  statement,  ^'In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.''  And  this  truth  is  the  corner- 
stone of  that  rock  foundation  that  we  find  in  Gen.  1,  for 
exact  science  as  well  as  for  revealed  religion.  Admitting 
this  fundamental  fact,  our  next  inquiry  would  naturally 
be,  to  what  extent  the  great  First  Cause  has  been  im- 
manent and  active  in  the  orderly  development  of  creation. 
Beginning  pretty  well  back,  if  God  had  withdrawn  after 
speaking  the  first  stellar  system  into  existence,  would 
other  unknown  millions  of  stellar  systems  have  come  into 
existence?  The  answer  seems  apparent  when  we  reflect 
that  every  stellar  system  is  independent  of  every  other  and 
is  itself  a  distinct  creation  center.  He  was  still  immanent 
and  active,  at  least  until  the  last  sun  was  made.  But  after 
the  fiat  for  the  solar  system  had  gone  forth,  did  he  with- 
draw to  the  shades  after  enduing  matter  with  inherent 
power  to  produce  the  phenomena  that  have  since  ap- 
peared? The  question  may  come  closer  home.  What  is 
his  relation  to  the  universe  now?    Has  He  withdrawn  to 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      53 

the  shades  after  enduing  matter  with  inherent  power  to 
produce  phenomena?  The  question  may  appear  with 
more  distinct  outlines  in  the  form,  * '  What  if  Grod  should 
die  ? "  There  are  forces  in  existence  now,  would  they  con- 
tinue to  operate  ?  The  sun  exerts  an  inconceivable  power 
over  the  planets  that  revolve  around  it.  What  is  that 
power  t  Men  call  it  gravitation,  but  that  accounts  for 
nothing.  Naming  a  phenomenon  does  not  explain  it.  If 
God  should  die,  would  the  sun  continue  to  exert  that 
force?  Would  other  suns?  Would  any  matter  still 
retain  the  power  over  adjacent  matter  that  it  now  has? 
Would  force  known  as  heat  exist,  or  light,  or  electricity  ? 
Would  the  X-ray  manifest  its  power?  These  questions 
might  be  continued  through  the  catalogue  of  more  subtle 
forces,  cohesion,  crystallization.  The  forces  that  regulate 
the  action  of  particles  of  solid  matter,  as,  for  example,  of 
steel,  would  they  continue  to  operate?  It  may  be  that 
the  very  existence  of  matter  itself  depends  upon  the  per- 
sistence of  force  or  forces.  Would  any  forces  remain  in 
operation  if  God  should  cease  to  exist?  Would  there  be 
anything  material,  would  anything  of  any  nature  or  even 
space  itself  remain?  Some  would  answer  these  questions 
instantly  in  the  aflSrmative.  But  after  all  that  answer 
may  not  be  correct.  Whatever  may  be  the  answer  there 
is  an  orderly  succession  that  suggests  cause  and  effect, 
and  if  the  power  to  produce  effects  inheres  in  the  nature 
of  matter  independently  of  an  exterior  great  First  Cause, 
it  exists  there  because  an  intelligent  and  infinite  First 
Cause  has  placed  it  there.* 

•Note  the  opinion  expressed  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  that 
'  *  the  existence  of  a  great  World-Soul  is  the  best  explana- 
tion of  things  as  they  are. " 


54      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

This  may  seem  a  dogmatic  assertion.  But  with  all  due 
deference  there  is  no  use  in  mincing  one's  words  and 
hesitating  and  expressing  doubt  upon  this  point.  A 
modern  iconoclast  has  tried  to  prove  by  a  priori  reason- 
ing, or  in  some  other  way,  that  the  Chinese  wall  is  only  the 
figment  of  imagination,  that  really  there  is  no  such  thing. 
Suppose  some  intelligent  European  had  lived  for  twenty 
years  within  sight  of  it,  had  walked  upon  its  top,  had 
noted  its  towers  and  had  traced  its  course  for  hundreds 
of  miles,  would  it  be  necessary  for  him  to  speak  doubt- 
ingly,  or,  out  of  deference  to  the  opinion  of  one  who  had 
never  taken  pains  to  inform  himself,  say  *  *  I  may  be  mis- 
taken. I  may  have  dreamed  that  I  lived  in  China  for 
twenty  years,  or  I  might  have  been  mistaken  when  I 
thought  I  saw  it,  or  have  been  laboring  under  a  hallucina- 
tion when  I  imagined  that  I  was  travelling  along  its  top. 
It  may  be  that  the  thousands  with  whom  I  have  talked 
and  the  millions  whom  I  know  to  believe  in  it  as  a  fact 
are  mistaken. 

'*At  least  out  of  deference  to  the  opinion  of  one  who 
does  not  believe  in  it,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  be  too 
dogmatic  in  our  assertions  concerning  it.  I  have  never 
traversed  the  whole  3,000  miles  of  its  course.  I  do  not 
know  the  composition  of  all  the  stones  that  enter  into 
its  construction.  I  do  not  know  the  cause  of  the  fissures 
it  crosses  or  the  precipices  it  scales.  I  was  not  living  in 
the  reign  of  Shi  Hwang-ti  who  is  reported  to  have  caused 
it  to  be  built.  In  fact  I  fiLod  there  is  so  little  about  it  that 
I  do  know  that  I  may  be  mistaken  in  it  all. ' ' 

There  is  no  call  for  any  such  concessions  to  the  ignor- 
ance of  one  who  has  complacency  in  his  ignorance  and 
will  not  take  pains  to  inform  himself.  Of  course  the 
answer  some  will  make  to  this  line  of  argument  is  that 


•?^ 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Sscience  and  Religion      55 

the  Chinese  wall  is  an  object  of  sense  perception,  while 
God  is  not.  True,  but  the  cognitions  which  are  brought 
to  the  soul  of  man  by  perception  are  not  material.  And 
the  only  function  of  the  senses  is  to  bring  intangible  and 
non-material  cognitions  to  the  soul.  But  there  are  cog- 
nitions that  are  not  conveyed  through  these  channels. 
The  sense  of  smell  brings  cognitions  of  things  that  are 
responsive  to  the  sense  of  smell,  so  of  sight,  taste,  touch. 
But  these  cover  but  a  small  range  of  cognitions.  The  cog- 
nition, *'I  am"  does  not  come  to  one  in  that  way.  The 
The  cognition  **God*'  need  not,  and  both  may  be  equally 
well  known  as  facts.  One  may  say  ^'ego  sum'*  without 
hesitating  or  making  concessions  to  the  Gnostic  philo- 
sophy, and  any  such  concession  even  would  not  relieve 
the  situation.  One  may  say  ^'Deu^  esf  with  as  little  call 
for  concession  to  one  who  doubts  the  fact.  *  *  In  the  begin- 
ning God*'  is  the  comer  stone  of  the  rock  foundation  in 
Gen.  I.,  for  exact  science  as  well  as  for  revealed  religion. 

DESIGN    IN    CREATION 

Admitting  the  fact  that  (Jod  is  and  that  God  created 
and  made,  the  question  is  asked,  did  He  have  design  in 
making  the  worlds  and  the  things  in  them!  Are  parts 
designedly  placed  in  certain  relation  to  parts  for  a 
designed  result  or  for  a  purpose  that  would  not  have 
been  served  by  accident  1  The  question  does  not  differ  in 
kind  or  degree  from  the  same  question  concerning  a 
steam  threshing  machine.  Admitting  that  some  one  made 
the  machine  is  it  likely  that  there  was  a  designed  con- 
struction and  adjustment  of  parts  for  specific  ends  or  are 
the  different  parts  of  one  machine  fortuitous  collections 
of  matter  assembled  by  some  other  fortuitous  circum- 
stances? Such  a  question  needs  no  answer.  Neither 
does  the  former  save  for  a  strange  mistiness  of  conception 


56      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

or  confusion  of  thought  that  takes  everything  for 
granted.  And  when  one  argues  for  design  in  nature,  the 
argument  usually  proceeds  about  as  one  might  proceed 
in  arguing  for  the  manifestation  of  design  in  a  steam 
threshing  machine.  ^^This  is  evidently  not  the  result  of 
chance,  for  the  belt  is  just  long  enough  and  none  too  long 
to  convey  motion  from  the  belt  wheel  of  the  engine  to  the 
cylinder  in  the  machine  that  threshes  the  grain.''  The 
complex  mechanism  of  the  boiler  and  engine  and  their 
adaptations  to  each  other  as  well  as  the  still  more  com- 
plicated separator  with  its  thousands  of  parts  all  con- 
structed with  reference  to  the  purpose  they  are  to  serve 
and  adjusted  to  each  other  so  as  to  secure  the  desired  end, 
all  these  are  taken  for  granted.  They  come  as  a  matter 
of  course  and  do  not  need  to  be  accounted  for  and  we 
need  not  look  into  them  for  evidence  of  design.  But  there 
is  design  in  every  part  and  manifestation  of  design  per- 
vades the  whole  of  these  structures,  even  to  the  smallest 
bolt,  screw,  nail  or  curiously  shaped  fragment  of  wood. 
These  things,  thousands  of  them,  are  to  be  taken  into 
consideration  as  well  as  the  length  of  the  belt  in  arguing 
for  design  as  manifested  in  their  construction.  It  is  so  in 
nature.  One  might  argue  for  design  in  the  human  body 
because  the  pneumogastric  nerve  rises  near  the  seat  of  life 
in  the  base  of  the  brain  and  proceeds  to  the  organs  in  the 
body  most  closely  connected  with  and  necessary  for  the 
life  of  the  body.  One  might  say  that  design  is  mani- 
fested here  because  if  the  functions  of  the  vital  organs 
had  depended  upon  nerves  issuing  from  the  spinal  cord 
at  its  nearest  point  an  injury,  so  likely  to  occur,  to  the 
spinal  cord  would  necessarily  prove  fatal.  An  injury  is 
less  likely  to  occur  to  a  nerve  situated  entirely  within  the 
body  than  to  one  near  the  outside,  like  the  spinal  cord.  So 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      57 

design  is  manifested  in  the  human  body  in  this  arrange- 
ment. The  argument  would  be  correct  as  far  as  it  went. 
But  it  would  be  about  as  exhaustive  as  an  argument  from 
the  length  of  the  belt  would  be  for  design  in  the  case 
before  mentioned.  There  is  design  manifested  in  the 
position  of  that  nerve.  There  is  design  in  its  construction 
so  that  it  conveys  just  the  messages  from  the  brain  that 
are  needed  for  the  action  of  those  vital  organs.  There  is 
design  manifested  in  the  great  sympathetic  system  of 
nerves  and  in  its  almost  total  independence  of  the  cerebro- 
spinal system.  There  is  design  manifested  in  the  con- 
struction as  well  as  in  the  position  of  the  optic  nerve,  so 
that  it  conveys  impressions  produced  upon  the  retina  by 
light.  There  is  design  in  the  construction  of  the  auditory 
nerve  so  that  it  responds  to  vibrations  of  the  tympanum. 
There  is  design  manifested  in  the  construction  of  nerves 
so  that  some  fibres  convey  messages  of  sense  and  others 
of  motion.  There  is  as  much  design  in  the  eye  itself  as  in 
the  telescope,  in  the  ear  as  in  the  phonograph.  There  is 
design  manifest  in  the  construction  of  the  lungs  so  that  by 
endosmose  oxygen  may  pass  into  the  blood  and  by 
exosmose  carbonic  acid  may  go  out.  There  is  design  mani- 
fest in  the  construction  and  ramifications  of  the  tubes 
themselves  as  w^ell  as  in  the  gas  or  water  pipes  of  a  great 
city.  The  list  might  be  extended  indefinitely,  for  there 
is  not  a  portion  of  the  animal  frame  as  large  as  a  pin's 
head  but  what  is  as  complicated  in  its  construction  as  a 
watch,  so  far  as  the  human  maker  is  concerned,  and  con- 
tains as  much  evidence  of  design.  It  is  so  of  every  frag- 
ment of  the  vegetable  kingdom.  It  is  so  of  every  frag- 
ment of  the  mineral  kingdom.  We  do  not  realize  it  be- 
cause of  the  limitations  of  our  knowledge  concerning 
them.    But  in  the  final  analysis,  a  grain  of  sand  with  the 


58      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

ultimate  atoms  composing  it,  their  forms,  their  nature, 
their  responses  to  the  action  of  forces  that  keep  them 
together  and  that  cause  them  to  assume  certain  shapes, 
their  own  activities  among  themselves,  their  adaptations 
to  each  other  and  to  the  universe  at  large,  these  with  other 
circumstances  connected  with  it  make  a  grain  of  sand 
as  complicated  in  its  structure  and  to  contain  within 
itself  as  much  evidence  of  design  as  the  most  complicated 
machine  of  human  contrivance.*  There  is  design  man- 
ifest in  the  infinite  vastness  of  the  stellar  systems.  There 
is  design  manifest  in  the  infinitely  small.  But  the 
answer  of  some  to  the  foregoing  is  of  course  known. 
These  things  come  in  the  course  of  nature.  In  the  mineral 
kingdom  they  are  formed  by  forces  operating  in  the 
inorganic  world.  In  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms 
they  grow.  With  some  that  answer  is  sufficient  and  satis- 
factory. It  is  the  Topsy  philosophy,  ** There  didn't 
nobody  make  me,  I  growed."  But  in  the  light  of  the 
absolute,  the  positive  knowledge  that  **God  is,''  **God 
created,"  '*God  made,"  there  is  a  profounder  wisdom 
than  the  Topsy  philosophy.  These  things  are  made,  they 
are  made  for  a  purpose,  they  are  made  from  design. 

With  reference  to  the  wonderful  formation  of  even  so 
apparently  simple  a  thing  as  a  grain  of  sand  or  a  drop 
of  water  note  the  following.* 

AN    ATOM 

**  Atom"  means  something  indivisible,  but  the  chemical 
atom  has  belied  its  name.  The  atom  of  hydrogen,  the 
smallest  and  lightest  of  them  all,  is  now  believed  to  be 
made  up  of  about  seven  hundred  ** electrons" — a  name 
given  to  the  ultimate  particles  of  matter,  each  of  which 
is  charged  with  electricity. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  8cie7ice  and  Religion      59 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  grander  conception  of  the  con- 
stitution of  matter  than  is  that  set  forth  in  a  recent 
lecture  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  one  of  the  foremost  men  of 
science  of  our  time.  He  asks  us  to  consider  an  atom  of 
any  element  as  an  infinitely  little  solar  system.  If  the 
electron  be  conceived  of  as  having  the  size  of  the  full  stop 
at  the  end  of  this  sentence,  the  size  of  an  atom  of 
hydrogen  will  be  that  of  a  church  one  hundred  and  sixty 
feet  long,  eighty  feet  broad  and  forty  feet  high. 

Less  than  a  thousand  electrons  occupy  the  atom,  in  the 
sense  that  an  army  occupies  a  country.  They  prevent 
anything  else  from  entering;  they  make  the  atom  im- 
penetrable, although  they  do  not  fill  a  trillionth  part  of 
the  space  with  their  actual  substance.  The  electrons  are 
in  violent  motion  among  themselves,  having  a  speed  prob- 
ably one-tenth  that  of  light — thousands  of  miles  a 
second. 

Yet  there  is  little  danger  of  collision,  for  the  electrons 
are  much  farther  apart  in  proportion  to  their  size  than 
are  the  planets  of  our  system.  Thus,  s^ys  Sir  Oliver,  we 
have  come  to  an  atomic  astronomy,  and  he  suggests  the 
amazing  thought  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute 
size,  and  that  even  solar  and  star  systems  may  be  the 
atoms  of  a  larger  universe. 

It  seems  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  speak  of  the  study 
of  an  atom  as  a  means  of  broadening  the  mind ;  but  where 
can  one  find  a  higher  flight  of  the  fancy  than  in  the  idea 
of  that  atom  as  a  sphere  of  motion  at  a  speed  which  the 
himian  mind  can  hardly  conceive  1 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Origin  of  Life  as  Described  in  Genesis  and  Recorded 
in  the  Rocks,  Continued 

MODAL   EVOLUTION 

WE  next  consider  Evolution  as  Modal. 
This  is,  of  course,  the  theory  held  by- 
all  Christian  evolutionists.  In  attempt- 
ing to  study  evolution,  it  is  unfortunate 
that  there  should  be  so  much  confusion  or  at  least  so  great 
a  variety  of  thought  in  one  term.  It  would  help  clarify 
the  subject  if  we  were  to  use  at  least  two  terms  for 
different  thoughts,  as  '^development''  for  processes  that 
take  place  according  to  what  we  know  as  the  laws  of 
nature,  e.  g.,  the  hatching  of  an  egg.  The  term  ''evolu- 
tion'' should  be  reserved  for  those  processes  that  involve 
at  least  as  much  as  the  transmutation  of  species. 

It  may  be  further  stated  that  a  consideration  of  this 
subject  can  be  carried  on  mainly  without  theological  bias. 
Except  where  the  hypothesis  is  carried  to  the  extreme  of 
morals  and  religion,  it  affects  religion  only  indirectly  and 
incidentally  rather  than  directly  and  necessarily. 

To  what  extent  this  influence  may  be  injurious  owing 
to  the  limitations  of  human  nature  we  will  not  now  con- 
sider. We  will  here  say  only  that  it  touches  religion  con- 
tingently. Turning  now  to  organic  evolution,  what  is  the 
fundamental  idea  ?  According  to  Huxley,  life  originated 
in  undifferentiated  protoplasmic  matter  which  by  its  in- 
herent power  became  endued  with  life,  of  the  lowest  form, 
and  then  by  a  constant  succession  of  transmutation  of 
species  has  passed  into  higher  forms  and  has  finally 

60 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      61 

produced  mankind.  Quoting  his  own  words  in  speaking 
of  this  process  he  says,  "In  all  this  vast  progression 
there  would  be  no  breach  of  continuity,  no  point  at  which 
we  could  say,  this  is  a  natural  process,  and  this  is  not  a 
natural  process,  but  that  the  whole  might  be  compared 
to  the  '  *  *  hatching  of  a  chick  from  an  egg. '  '  *  *  *  That  in 
fact  is  what  is  meant  by  the  hypothesis  of  evolution. ' ' 

The  question  then  arises,  did  all  life  spring  from  one 
protoplasmic  cell  or  were  there  two^  If  two,  one  for 
vegetable  and  one  for  animals,  why  not  more!  That  is 
the  question  to  be  settled  by  the  evidence. 

Referring  to  the  stellar  system,  as  I  have  before  in- 
timated, there  must  be  as  many  creation  centers  as  there 
are  fixed  stars  and  of  these  there  are  at  a  conser- 
vative estimate  50,000,000.  Now  if  there  are  50,000,000 
creation  centers  in  the  stellar  universe,  is  there  any 
iuherent  improbability  that  there  were  more  than 
one,  two  or  a  dozen  such  centers  in  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms  of  earth  T  The  nebular  theory,  if 
true,  only  illustrates  the  development  of  an  individual 
life  and  not  that  of  even  a  species,  to  say  nothing  of  a 
series  of  transmutations  of  species. 

In  organic  evolution,  then,  we  must  begin  with  the 
question  as  to  the  evidence  that  all  forms  of  life  began 
with  one  low  form  of  life  and  if  so,  what  1  If  from  two, 
one  vegetable  and  one  animal,  what  are  the  results?  No 
definite  opinion,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  generally  held.  Hux- 
ley attempts  to  trace  man  back  to  the  sea  squirt,  but  was 
that  the  original  form  ?  No.  There  is  not  a  naturalist  or 
geologist  who  would  admit  that,  for  that  is  a  high  form 
of  life  compared  with  many  others.  The  earliest  fossil 
remains  so  far  found  are  those  of  animals.  But  animals 
would  not  give  birth  to  plants  or,  if  they  did,  it  would  be 


62      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

a  downward  rather  than  an  upward  movement.  Without 
doubt  the  first  forms  of  life  were  vegetable  of  which  no 
traces  have  yet  been  found. 

About  the  earlipt  vegetable  forms  known  were  those 
of  the  algae  or  sea  weeds.  But  during  the  geologic  ages 
that  species  has  remained  essentially  unchanged  and 
abounds  today  in  forms  the  same  as  those  of  the  earliest 
specimens  yet  found.  Now  if  some  algae  parents  begat 
algae  offsprings,  so  to  speak,  and  have  continued  to  do  so 
throughout  the  ages,  is  it  probable  that  other  algae 
parents  begat  offspring  of  some  other  species  and  these 
begat  other  species  still  and  so  the  thousands  of  species 
of  fossil  and  living  plants  have  been  produced?  But 
another  fact  confronts  us.  Of  late  the  science  of  bac- 
teriology has  been  coming  to  the  front.  Students  of  that 
science  have  reason  to  suppose  that  there  are  as  many 
varieties  and  species  of  microscopic  vegetation  as  of  the 
larger  forms  which  we  see  around  us. 

Have  they  all  a  common  ancestor?  And  if  they  are 
all  the  terminal  forms  of  an  upward  movement  that  has 
been  going  on  through  all  the  geologic  ages,  from  what 
did  they  begin  ?  If  there  has  been  an  upward  movement 
through  all  these  ages,  it  is  incomprehensible  that  we 
should  have  existing  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same  habitat, 
thousands  of  forms  of  life  from  the  microbe,  or  the  mould, 
to  the  sequoia  or  big  trees  of  California.  If  evolution  in 
the  vegetable  kingdom  has  been  a  general  law,  it  must  be 
exceedingly  uncertain  and  capricious  in  its  operations. 

But  we  are  told  that  it  is  not,  cannot  be  a  general  law. 
We  hardly  need  to  be  told  that,  but,  if  it  is  not  general, 
how  restricted  is  it  ?  and  if  not  universal  how  are  we  to 
determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  its  restrictions  ?  An 
assumed  law  that  is  so  variable  and  capricious  in  its 


0$nesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      6S 

operations,  with  so  many  unknowable  restrictions  in 
itself,  could  hardly  seem  to  form  the  basis  of  scientific 
knowledge. 

Precisely  the  same  is  true  of  animal  life.  We  have 
microscopic  forms  of  animal  life  as  well  as  of  vegetable 
life.  And  we  have  today  all  of  the  practically  infinite 
varieties  of  life  existing  at  the  same  time,  life  from  that 
of  the  microbe  that  produces  diseases  of  the  animal  frame 
to  that  of  the  elephant,  forms  of  life  from  the  parasite 
of  the  microscopic  insect  to  man,  all  being  in  the  same 
habitat,  and  yet  exhibiting  such  variety.  It  is  diflScult  to 
conceive  a  law  that  would  be  as  capricious  in  its  opera- 
tions as  that.  I  speak  of  microscopic  insects.  They  are 
not  mentioned  in  evolution,  but  they  are  facts  to  be  ac- 
counted for  the  same  as  elephants.  Have  all  come  from 
the  same  starting  point?  If  we  have  to  admit  that  there 
must  have  been  a  few  separate  starting  points  why  not 
admit  more,  enough  in  fact,  to  obviate  the  necessity  of 
assuming  transmutations  of  species  t 

But  confining  ourselves  to  the  large  animals.  Haeckel 
assumes  that  it  has  taken  1,000,000,000  years  for  men  to 
evolve  from  the  lower  vertebrate  animals.  But  they  do 
not  carry  us  farther  than  one-third  at  least  of  the  way 
back  to  the  first  forms  of  life.  However,  assuming  that  as 
the  full  period  of  animal  life  on  the  globe,  we  have  the 
eozoon  (first  form)  standing  for  a  thousand  millions  of 
years  as  a  monument  to  fixity  of  species,  for  it  exists  to- 
day as  it  did  in  the  eozoic  age.  If  other  forms  of  life 
have  come  from  it,  we  have  the  phenomena  of  some  eozoon 
parents  producing  eozoon  offspring  in  unbroken  succes- 
sion for  that  length  of  time  while  other  eozoon  parents 
gave  birth  to  Polyps,  Acalephs,  Echinoderms,  Acephala, 
Gasteropoda  Cephalopoda,  worms  and  so  on  in  endless 


64      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

variety  through  the  great  classes  of  Radriates,  Mollusks 
and  Articulates,  and  all  existing  in  the  same  waters  and 
at  the  same  time.  Then  upward  with  the  vertebrates  with 
their  countless  species  to  the  highest  ones.  All  of  these 
varieties,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  have  taken  place 
in  the  descendants  of  some  eozoons,  while  some  w^ere  con- 
tinuing absolutely  without  change. 

Of  course  we  are  familiar  with  the  evolutionists'  ex- 
planations, that  natural  selection,  survival  of  the  fittest 
and  other  factors  produce  different  conditions.  But  the 
conditions  are  such  that  the  original  eozoon  lived  and 
multiplied.  What  was  the  necessity  of  its  begetting 
trilobite  offspring  ?  And  their  conditions  were  such  that 
trilobites  lived  and  flourished  and  have  done  so  to  the 
present  time.  What  was  the  necessity  for  them  to  beget 
Aroncolae  or  Paradoxide  offspring?  These  questions 
could  be  repeated  of  thousands  of  different  species  all 
living  contemporaneously,  in  the  same  waters,  with  the 
same  food  at  their  disposal,  the  same  environments  in 
every  respect.  What  need  that  one  species  should  beget 
another  species  to  adapt  it  the  better  to  its  own  home? 
** Survival  of  the  fittest''  is  another  theory  to  account  for 
the  phenomena.  But  it  accounts  for  nothing,  for  fit  or 
unfit,  the  original  forms  survive  for  millions  of  years  in 
the  same  habitat  as  their  supposed  offspring.  Partheno- 
genesis also  comes  in  to  help  out  the  explanations.  But 
the  fact,  if  it  be  a  fact,  that  one  sex  in  some  moths  and 
some  bees  have  offspring  without  intercourse  with  the 
other  sex  explains  nothing.  All  these  causes  or  modes  of 
evolution  are  so  utterly  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
phenomena  that  many  evolutionists  abandon  them  en- 
tirely and  seek  proof  of  evolution,  without  reference  to 
cause  or  mode,  in  Embryology. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      65 

It  is  observed  that  the  human  embryo  passes  through 
stages  in  which  it  somewhat  resembles  some  lower  forms 
of  life.  It  is  hence  inferred  that  it  gives  a  history  of  the 
development  of  the  human  race  from  the  lower  animals. 
But  there  must  be  some  stages  of  development  in  which 
the  human  form  is  not  perfect.  It  is  so  with  the  oak — 
with  every  form  of  life.  The  doctrine  of  epigenesis  was 
never  sustained  by  any  observations  of  nature.  But 
without  discussing  this  phase  of  the  question  further, 
it  is  apparent  that  this  similarity  accounts  for  nothing. 
If  it  be  an  analogy  to  the  development  of  the  human  race 
then  the  records  of  that  development  would  appear  in 
the  rocks.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  argument  from 
atrophied  or  rudimentary,  or  more  properly,  vestigial 
appendages.  They  prove  absolutely  nothing.  They  may 
suggest  lines  of  inquiry,  but  anything  to  sustain  such 
theories  must  come  from  the  records  in  nature — geology. 
In  any  form  of  development  that  is  worthy  of  a  separate 
name,  transmutation  of  species  must  have  occurred  thou- 
sands if  not  millions  of  times.  But  there  is  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  anywhere  that  it  ever  occurred  even  once. 
Mr.  Etheredge  in  charge  of  the  Natural  History  depart- 
ment of  the  great  British  Museum,  has  plainly  said,  **In 
all  this  great  museum  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
of  transmutation  of  species.**  No  scientist,  whether 
evolutionist  or  not,  has  ever  kno\;\Ti  of  an  individual  case, 
nor  do  they  pretend  to.  They  are  still  hunting  for  a 
single  specimen,  but  billions  of  them  are  required.  The 
transition  of  one  species  to  another  is  supposed  to  have 
taken  place  by  a  gradual  differentiation  from  a  lower  to 
a  higher  form,  and  evolutionists  claim  that  billions  of 
years  are  sufficient  to  account  for  the  change.  But  first 
they  haven 't  billions  of  years  to  work  in,  for,  as  has  been 


66      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

suggested  before,  in  the  chapter  on  Suborganic  Evolution, 
the  sun  is  of  such  recent  creation  that  it  has  not  yet  had 
time  to  so  equalize  its  own  motion,  but  that  the  exterior 
is  still  flowing  around  a  more  slowly  revolving  core.  The 
same  is  more  strikingly  true  in  the  planet  Jupiter.  And 
with  reference  to  these  long  periods  in  general,  the  longer 
the  time  the  weaker  the  argument ;  for  the  greater  should 
be  the  number  of  transitional  forms,  and  not  one  has  ever 
yet  been  discovered. 

Let  us  bring  out  the  force  of  this  argument  by  a  specific 
case,  that  of  Huxley's  *' Demonstrative  Evidence  of 
Evolution. ' '  In  this  he  gives  the  pedigree,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  horse,  according  to  specimens  by  the  late  Prof.  Marsh 
of  Yale,  which  are  now  in  the  museum  of  Yale  College. 

These  specimens  are  the  remains  of  the  Orohippus. 
found  in  the  eocene  period ;  then  in  a  rising  scale  there 
are  the  Mesohippus,  Miohippus,  Protohippus,  Pliohippus 
and  Equus,  or  horse,  as  at  the  present.  The  eocene  period 
takes  us  back  about  one-third  of  Haeckers  billion  years 
to  the  first  vertebrates.  Say  then  for  convenience  that 
the  orohippus  lived  three  hundred  millions  of  years  ago, 
and  as  there  are  five  stages  to  reach  the  horse  we  may  as- 
sume as  his  figures  that  from  one  form  to  the  other  was 
60  millions  of  years.  How  many  transitional  forms 
might  we  not  expect  to  find  for  each  terminal  one  ?  Al- 
lowing five  years  for  the  young  to  become  parents — and 
in  the  early  forms  probably  one  year  would  suffice — and 
there  would  naturally  be  12,000,000  intermediate  forms 
between  each  fixed  pair,  and  yet  not  one  of  them  has  ever 
yet  been  discovered.  This  only  illustrates  one  gap  where 
there  are  tens  of  thousands  of  them.  To  meet  the  diffi- 
culty Darwin  and  Huxley  simply  say  ''We  should  not 
expect  to  find  any,''    But  I  should.     Why  not?    Why 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      67 

might  we  not  expect  to  find  a  few  of  the  12,000,000  inter- 
mediate forms  in  this  gap  as  well  as  in  every  ease  the  one 
or  two  at  the  extremes?  Huxley  meets  it  as  every  evolu- 
tionist meets  every  difficulty,  by  the  imperfection  of  the 
records  and  by  stating  that  in  two  cases  an  apparently 
intermediate  species  has  been  found  in  two  very  wide 
gaps.  But,  with  reference  to  the  imperfection  in  the 
rock  records,  in  hundreds  of  cases  the  records  in  the  rocks 
are  sufficiently  perfect  to  establish  the  fixity  of  species 
for  a  large  portion  or  the  whole  of  geologic  time.  The 
algae,  for  example,  from  the  time  that  we  have  any  traces 
of  vegetation  have  remained  unchanged  The  records  in 
the  rocks  are  perfect  enough  to  establish  fixity  of  species 
for  them  all  through  the  geological  ages  since  vegetation 
first  appeared  on  the  planet.  Several  other  vegetable 
species  and  many  animal  species  for  the  same  or  nearly 
the  same  length  of  time  have  remained  unchanged.* 

But  suppose  the  transition  from  one  species  to  another 
to  be  abrupt,  one  species  producing  another  or  next 
higher  without  transitional  forms,  then  we  should  have 
the  phenomenon  of  one  species  remaining  fixed  for  an 
inconceivably  long  period  of  time  and  then  at  once  bring- 
ing forth  another  species.  As  for  instance,  taking 
Haeckel  's  large  figures  we  should  have  the  orohippus  re- 
maining fixed  for  some  20  to  60  million  years  and  then, 
just  as  the  eocene  merged  into  what  we  may  call  the 
mesocene,  some  orohippus  parents  brought  forth  meso- 
hippus  offspring,  which  again  maintained  an  absolute 
fixity  of  species  for  another  period  of  from  20  to  60  mil- 
lion years,  when  again  some  mesohippus  parents  brought 
forth  miohippus  offspring  and  so  on  through  the  series. 

•See  appendix  (g). 


68      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

According  to  this  theory  each  species  would  have  pre- 
served an  absolute  fixity  for  millions  of  years  and  then 
at  once  some  parent  in  that  species  suddenly  begat  off- 
spring of  another  species.  It  would  naturally  seem  as  if 
these  millions  of  years  were  enough  to  establish  fixity  of 
species  in  each  case  and  if  another  species  appears  at  the 
end  of  one  of  these  periods,  it  must  be  accounted  for  in 
some  other  way  than  as  being  the  offspring  of  antecedent 
species  that  has  been  fixed  so  long. 

There  seems  to  be  a  mistiness  of  thought  in  some  circles 
as  to  cause  and  effect.  We  used  to  read  in  our  school 
readers  that  ''Great  effects  result  from  little  causes.'' 
As  a  match  could  set  fire  to  a  city,  a  little  break  in  a 
river  dam  cause  an  overflow  and  so  on.  In  the  sense  in 
which  the  writer  used  the  words  he  was  correct,  for  he 
referred  only  to  the  fact  that  some  small  forces  could 
direct  or  release  greater  forces  that  were  sufficient  to 
produce  the  effects,  while  in  fact  admitting  that  no  effect 
is  ever  produced  greater  than  the  sum  total  of  the  forces 
operating  to  produce  it.  A  little  girl  some  years  ago 
touched  an  electric  button  and  the  bed  rock  under  the 
Hell  Gate  in  N.  Y.  harbor  leaped  from  its  resting  place 
in  millions  of  fragments  and  the  waters  above  were  for 
a  moment  converted  into  a  boiling  sea  of  foam.  But  the 
ounce  of  force  exerted  by  Gen.  Newton's  little  girl  was 
not  the  efficient  cause.  It  was  not  a  great  effect  from  a 
little  cause,  because  every  pound  of  force  manifested  in 
effect  was  the  result  of  a  pound  of  causing  force  behind  it. 
The  little  girl's  touch  only  released  forces  that  were  suffi- 
cient to  produce  the  effect. 

So  in  every  case.  The  final  result  is  but  the  measure 
of  the  cause  that  produced  it.  This  statement  is  just  as 
true  with  reference  to  the  potentiality  of  the  protoplas- 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      69 

mic  celL  There  are  millions  of  such  cells  in  existence 
now,  each  one  capable  of  receiving  its  life  principle  only 
from  its  own  peculiar  source,  and  then  its  potency  is  con- 
fined to  development  only  along  its  own  peculiar  line. 
The  protoplasmic  cell  on  an  incipient  corn  cob  cannot 
be  fertilized  by  the  pollen  of  the  rose.  It  must  be 
fertilized  by  pollen  from  the  com  tassel  and  then  it 
will  appropriate  the  nutriment  brought  to  it  by  the 
parent  stalk  and  it  can  develop  only  into  a  grain  of  corn. 
Others  will  receive  their  life  principle  from  other  sources, 
but  each  one  from  its  own  and  exclusive  source  and  will 
develop  it  along  its  own  line. 

Now  to  endue  the  little  aggregate  of  protoplasmic  cells 
in  the  germ  of  algae  with  potentiality  to  produce  a 
sequoia  would  be  equivalent  to  the  creation  ex  nihilo,  of 
the  sequoia.  To  endue  a  polyp  with  power  either  directly 
or  indirectly  to  produce  an  elephant  is  equivalent  to 
producing  an  elephant.  To  endue  a  sea  squirt  with  power 
to  finally  develop  into  a  man  would  be  equivalent  to  the 
creation  of  a  man.  Yet  how  easy  it  is  for  the  imagination 
to  endue  the  ovum  of  the  orohippus  with  the  power  to 
produce  the  mesohippus  or  any  other  form.  And  how 
easy  it  is  for  men  in  imagination  to  endue  the  '*  slimy 
ooze  of  the  early  sedimentary  deposits''*  with  power  to 
produce  all  the  varied  forms  of  life  that  have  existed 
since.  But  in  every  instance  the  enduement  of  such 
power  would  have  been  equivalent  to  the  creation  of  the 
resultant  forms. 

But  with  reference  to  the  **  Demonstrative  Evidence 
of  Evolution''  one  question  is  whether  the  movement  is 
upward  or  downward.    The  horse  is  larger  than  the  oro- 

•See  appendix  (h). 


7U      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

hippus  but  not  necessarily  more  highly  organized.  If  size 
be  the  measure  of  development,  then  the  summit  of  evolu- 
tion was  reached  ages  ago  and  we  are  now  on  a  down 
grade,  for  the  largest  forms  of  life  existed  long  ago  and 
are  now  extinct.  But  if  the  eohippus  begat  the  orohippus, 
the  orohippus  the  mesohippus,  etc.,  is  it  an  upward  or 
downward  movement  in  animal  organization?  There  is 
increase  in  size,  but  the  atrophying  of  parts,  the  extinc- 
tion or  leaving  but  rudimentary  of  four  members,  leav- 
ing but  one  instead  of  five,  could  as  legitimately  be  con- 
sidered degeneration*  as  evolution. 

If  some  Nordeau,  advocating  degeneration  in  the 
animal  world,  should  use  that  as  an  illustration  it  would 
have  as  much  force. 

But  another  very  common  argument  is  that  we  see  the 
process  of  evolution  going  on  around  us  every  day.  The 
egg  hatches  a  tadpole,  the  tadpole  evolves  the  frog,  and 
so  on. 

We  could  accept  the  theory  if  men  would  confine  the 
meaning  of  the  term  to  what  is  proven  by  that  means. 
But  when  it  is  admitted  that  an  egg  can  evolve  a  chick 
or  that  the  hatching  of  a  chick  is  a  process  of  evolution, 
the  term  evolution  is  immediately  extended  so  as  to  em- 
brace an  entirely  different  idea.  The  process  is  some- 
thing like  this.  If  an  egg  can  evolve  a  chick,  evolution  is 
established.  But  eggs  have  repeatedly  been  known  to 
evolve  chicks,  hence  evolution  is  established.  But  evolu- 
tion means  that  a  single  protoprosmic  cell  has,  by  a  pro- 
cess of  multiplying  forms  through  an  indefinite  number 
of  species  produced  all  the  forms  of  life  that  have  existed 
on  earth. 

•Appendix  (i). 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      71 

This  conclusion  or  any  part  of  it  more  than  that  an  egg 
can  produce  a  chick,  involves  a  logical  fallacy  that  ought 
to  be  seen  even  by  one  who  has  never  studied  logic. 

But  one  of  the  greatest  practical  difficulties  with  any 
theory  of  evolution  is  the  existing  condition  of  things. 
If  the  organic  life  of  today  be  the  outcome  of  any  process 
of  evolution,  how  is  it  that  some  of  the  primitive  forms 
have  remained  through  all  the  geologic  ages  entirely  or 
practically  unchanged  t  Others  have  changed  but  very 
little  and  all  have  produced  very  capricious  results. 
Why  is  itt  We  have  microbes  that  produce  diseases  in 
men  and  we  have  elephants.  Have  all  evolved  from  the 
same  protoplasm  t  If  so  why  are  they  not  on  something 
of  the  same  plane  now!  We  have  thousands  of  species 
of  microscopic  plants  and  animals,  thousands  of  specits 
of  aquatic  and  thousands  more  of  land  animals  from  the 
eozoon  to  man.  Why  is  it  that  some  have  made  no  ad- 
vance at  all,  others  have  reached  the  highest  conditions 
as  man,  and  all  have  stopped  just  where  they  aret  We 
have  microbes,  infusoria,  and  thousands  of  other  members 
of  the  animal  kingdom.  We  have  still  the  ovum,  wiggler 
gnat,  ovum  wiggler  gnat,  repeating  the  same  small  circle 
of  existence  after  all  the  geologic  ages  have  given  them 
time,  but  still  the  circle  is  unbroken.  How  long  will  it 
take  to  get  above  that  condition?  We  have  ovum,  tad- 
pole, frog,  repeating  themselves  in  the  same  small  circle 
with  the  thousand  million  years,  so  often  quoted,  behind 
them  and  still  they  get  no  farther.  We  have  all  of  the 
thousands  of  species  of  larger  animals  with  only  a  very 
few  near  the  head.  If  advance  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher  forms  of  life  is  a  general  law  of  nature,  why  is  it 
that  we  have  the  very  lowest  forms  still,  and  the  highest 
with  all  of  the  intermediate  forms  still  in  cxiitenctt 


72      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

Whether  the  differentiation  has  been  by  natural  selec- 
tion, survival  of  the  fittest,  parthenogenesis  or  any  other 
means,  there  must  be  continual  creation  of  the  lower 
forms  to  supply  the  advancing  masses,  as  in  college  there 
must  be  freshmen  classes  to  supply  advancing  and 
graduating  ones. 

But  some  admit  that  the  law  of  evolution  cannot  be  a 
general  one.  If  not,  then  how  general  or  how  special  is 
it?  If  we  admit  that  it  is  a  special  law  for  only  a  few 
lines  of  individual  succession,  there  is  no  force  at  all  in 
a  general  argument,  and  we  are  at  once  thrown  upon  the 
proofs  for  each  specific  case.  If  in  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  species  of  plants  and  animals  now  in  existence 
there  has  been  transmutation  of  species  in  only  a  few 
instances,  the  strength  of  the  presumption  in  favor  of 
those  exceptional  cases  is  greatly  reduced. 

There  is  a  vast  number  of  species  of  living  things  now 
in  existence — for  convenience,  we  will  say  100,000, 
though  there  are  doubtless  more. 

Now  if  the  supposed  progressive  upward  movement 
has  characterized  only,  say,  a  couple  of  independent  lines 
of  individual  successions,  while  the  remaining  99,998 
have  remained  without  transmutation,  the  presumption 
is  very  strong  against  the  supposition  of  transmutation 
in  those  two  exceptional  cases.  This  presumption  is  the 
stronger  because  even  in  these  two  instances  there  is  not 
a  particle  of  evidence  that  transmutation  has  occurred. 
It  may  be  urged  that  there  is  such  evidence  in  the  case 
of  a  horse.  But  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the 
orohippus  was  the  progenitor  of  the  mesohippus  nor  that 
the  mesohippus  of  America  was  the  parent  of  the  miohip- 
pus  of  Europe.  The  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the 
theory  that  they  were  independent  of  each  other,  and  the 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      73 

presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  closely 
allied  forms  have  been  found  that  are  not  considered  to 
be  in  the  line  of  succession  at  all,  as  the  Anchitherium 
and  Hipparion.  So  far  as  any  proof  is  concerned,  the 
evidence  is  that  there  were  several  closely  allied  species 
existing,  some  contemporaneously,  some  successively,  but 
no  one  derived  from  another,  as  there  are  many  such 
existing  today,  as  in  the  case  of  monkeys  and  apes, 
closely  allied  but  not  derived  one  from  another,  as  the 
geologic  records  show  from  the  first  that  have  appeared. 

The  other  case  in  which  transmutation  is  insisted  upon, 
whatever  else  in  the  theory  must  go,  is  that  of  man. 

Whatever  else  must  be  yielded  in  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, it  is  most  strenuously  insisted  that  man  has  been 
evolved  from  lower  orders  of  animals.  Still  there  is  not 
a  particle  of  proof,  nothing  but  presumption;  and  the 
presumptive  evidence  is  greatly  weakened  by  the  fact 
that  nearly  all  of  the  species  through  which  he  is  sup 
posed  to  have  passed  are  still  in  existence.  It  is  difficult 
even  to  suppose  a  line  of  descent  through  the  various 
species  of  vertebrates  for  man 's  descent,  for  no  line  seems 
to  be  suggested  but  what  is  soon  abandoned.  But  what- 
ever line  we  take,  some  parents  must  have  brought  forth 
young  of  their  own  species,  w^hile  other  parents  must 
have  brought  forth  young  of  another  species,  for  the 
various  species  have  preserved  their  own  separate  exist- 
ence while  supposedly  furnishing  an  upward  succession. 
But  such  a  presumption  is  too  violent  to  be  scientific,  if 
not  too  violent  to  come  within  the  bounds  of  reason.  Even 
admitting  that  through  some  unknown  line  of  individual, 
not  general,  succession  man  has  been  evolved  by  gradual 
differentiation,  there  must  be  millions  of  intermediate 
fossil  forms,  while  scientists  are  vainly  looking  for  a 


74      Q$nesis,  Foundation  for  Scienc$  and  Religion 

single  link  to  prove  evolution.  But  to  prove  the  theory 
in  general,  billions  of  them  should  be  found.  To  prove 
it  in  the  single  case  of  man  would  require  hundreds  of 
thousands.  Transmutation  of  species  must  have  occurred 
thousands  of  times  even  in  this  one  line,  and  yet  not  in  a 
single  instance  has  it  ever  been  observed,  nor  would  it  be 
admitted  to  be  possible,  for  no  experience  or  experiments 
have  shown  it  to  be  possible,  except  for  the  necessity  of 
sustaining  a  theory  that  in  the  minds  of  some  must  be 
proven  at  all  hazards. 

The  superintendent  of  the  department  of  Natural 
History  in  the  British  Museum  referred  to  and  in  part 
quoted  before,  declares :  *  *  In  all  this  great  museum  there 
is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  transmutation  of  species. 
Nine-tenths  of  the  talk  of  evolutionists  is  sheer  non- 
sense, not  founded  on  observation,  and  wholly  unsup- 
ported by  fact.  They  adopt  a  theory  and  then  strain 
their  facts  to  support  it.  I  read  all  their  books,  but  they 
make  no  impression  on  my  belief  in  the  stability  of 
species.  Moreover  the  talk  of  the  great  antiquity  of  man 
is  of  the  same  sort.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  fossil 
man.  Men  are  ready  to  regard  you  as  a  fool  if  you  do 
not  go  with  them  in  all  their  vagaries.  But  this  museum 
is  full  of  proofs  of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views." 


CHAPTER  IV 

The   Science   of   Oeology,   Confirming   the   Records   of 
Genesis  I 

WE  refer  again  to  the  records  in  the  rocks  at 
confirming  the  records  in  Genesis.  As  be- 
fore stated,  Genesis  seems  to  teach  that 
plants  and  animals  brought  forth  after 
their  own  kind  or  species  and  not  after  some  other 
species.  We  read  with  reference  to  vegetables,  (Genesis 
1:11,  12),  **And  Got  said,  let  the  earth  bring  forth 
grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed  and  the  fruit  tree  yielding 
fruit  after  its  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the 
earth ;  and  it  was  so. " 

**And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass  and  herb  yielding 
seed  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree  yielding  fruit,  whose 
seed  was  in  itself,  after  his  kind;  and  God  saw  that  it 
was  good."  Also  in  reference  to  aquatic  animal  life 
[Genesis  1:21],  **And  Got  created  great  whales,  and 
every  living  creature  that  moveth,  which  the  water 
brought  forth  abundantly  after  their  kind,  and  every 
winged  fowl  after  its  kind,  and  God  saw  that  it  was 
good."  Then  as  to  land  animals,  verse  25,  **And  God 
made  the  beast  of  the  field  after  his  kind,  and  cattle  after 
their  kind,  and  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth 
after  its  kind ;  and  (Jod  saw  that  it  was  good. ' ' 

It  may  be  urged  with  reference  to  animal  life  that 
it  is  not  said  that  they  brought  forth  after  their  kind,  but 
it  is  distinctly  stated  that  God* 'created  "or**  made  "them 
after  their  several  kinds  or  species.  But  of  vegetables  it 
is  distinctly  affirmed  that  they  '*  brought  forth  after  their 
kind."    And  of  animals  it  is  an  inference  so  strong  that 

76 


76      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

it  is  safe  to  say  it  never  would  have  been  questioned  ex- 
cept as  necessary  to  sustain  some  other  theory.  There  is 
authority  for  this  view  that  ought  to  be  considered  high 
by  those  who  would  entertain  those  other  views.  Charles 
Darwin  never  hesitated  in  his  belief  that  Genesis  first 
taught  that  in  every  instance  the  creation  form  was  the 
terminal  form.  He  believed  that  Genesis  was  wrong  and 
that  his  theory  of  an  upward  movement  through  trans- 
mutation of  species  was  correct.  It  was  the  persistency 
of  this  idea,  i.  e.,  that  Genesis  was  wrong  and  he  was 
right,  that  occasioned  him  finally  to  lose  faith  in  Genesis, 
in  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  in  God  and  revealed  religion,  and 
to  die  a  practical  unbeliever.  It  may  seem  a  premature 
statement,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  in  future  years, 
when  the  truth  becomes  more  clearly  seen,  the  greatest 
lesson  that  Darwin  has  taught  the  world  is  the  involun- 
tary testimony  his  experience  bears  to  the  unity,  in- 
tegrity and  absolute  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures.  But 
it  is  not  for  us  here  to  decide  which  is  correct,  his  view 
of  the  teaching  of  Genesis  first  as  to  the  stability  of 
species,  or  his  theory  as  to  their  transmutation  from  one 
into  another  in  an  upward  series.  He  is  cited  here  only 
that  his  high  authority  may  confirm  the  commonly  re- 
ceived idea  that  Genesis  first  teaches  the  permanence  of 
species,  and  that  in  every  case  the  creation  form  is  the 
terminal  form.  This  latter  view  seems  to  be  the  teaching 
of  geology  without  the  shadow  of  dissent.  To  show  this 
clearly  to  the  eye  we  have  here  represented  some  of  the 
strata  of  the  earth,  as  the  Laurentian,  Huronian,  Cam- 
brian, Silurian,  Devonian,  and  so  on,  up  to  the  Modern ; 
the  divisions  of  time,  also,  as  Eozoic,  Paleozoic  and 
Neozoic.  The  perpendicular  lines  represent  some  of  the 
species,  and  their  length  represents  approximately  the 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      77 


Ezoic  Time 


Paleozoic  Time 


ill 


r 


i.  I 


SP.     w 


p3  n  13 

•^  B)  '^ 

s'  §•  i. 

S  2.  s 


MeMZoic 
Time 


H  'E'  0 


«•     2.    o 


Heozic  Time 


a*^*^^ 

%^^ 
*, 


^a 


?  ?  2 

i  8  § 

D  (•  n 

r»  D  D 


7"     C^ 

?  3 


EozooQ     Animal  Speciet  from  Eozoic 


Algae     Plant  Life  from  Eozoic 


Cedar 
Poplar 
Oak 
Tulip 
Willow 
Spice- wood 
Sastafrai 
Walnut 
Buckthorn 
Sumac 
Cinnamon 
Apple 
Fig 
Plum 
500  Species  of  Trilobites 


Archeopterjx— Bird  in  Jurassic  Period 
900  Species  of  Ammonitiet 


700  of  Ganoids  from  Paleozoic  Times,  some  of  which  extend  to  present 


450  Species  of  Nautilus  from  Silurian,  some  extending  to 
the  present 


1.  Orohippus  - 

2.  Mesohippus 

3.  Horse — extinct   species   found   by 
Darwin  in  Pleistocene 

4.  Miohippus 

5.  Protohippus 

6.  Pliohippus 

7.  Equus  of  present 


3 

c 
o 

4 

6 

7 

5__ 

78      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

geologic  ages  during  which  they  have  or  did  bring  forth 
' '  after  their  kind. ' '  In  the  vegetable  world,  for  example, 
we  have  the  algae,  that  from  Eozoic  to  the  present, 
whether  the  terrestrial  years  be  a  thousand,  a  million  or 
a  thousand  millions,  have  ''brought  forth  after  their 
kind/'  The  species  has  remained  fixed  through  all  the 
ages  since  it  first  appeared.  The  same  may  be  «aid  of 
some  other  species. 

Some  lines  represent  the  persistence  of  other  species 
from  the  carboniferous  period — cedar,  poplar,  willow, 
oak,  fig,  tulip,  spice-wood,  sassafras,  walnut,  buckthorn©, 
sumac,  cinnamon,  apple  and  the  plum.  Whenever  you 
look  at  one  of  these  common  trees  you  have  evidence  of 
the  truthfulness  of  the  record  in  Genesis.  * '  They  brought 
forth  after  their  kind*';  for  from  the  early  geologic  age, 
or  for  some  say  5,000,000  years,  they  have  invariably  and 
unvaryingly  produced  their  species,  brought  forth  ''after 
their  kind,''  as  stated  in  Genesis  1;12.  In  the  animal 
kingdom  a  long  line  represents  the  persistence  of 
Eozoon,  which  has  brought  forth  after  its  kind  from  the 
earliest  time  that  animal  life  appeared  upon  the  globe. 
We  need  not  refer  to  years,  for,  whether  thousands  or 
millions,  it  has  reproduced  its  species — brought  forth 
after  its  kind — during  them  all.  But  many  species  are 
so  numerous  that  we  have  to  let  one  line  represent  a  hun- 
dred species.  Note  five  lines  representing  five  hundred 
species  of  trilobites,  that  through  the  unknown  ages  of 
the  Paleozoic  time  brought  forth  "after  their  kind" 
without  even  a  hint  that  a  single  individual  of  any 
species  ever  reproduced  anything  but  a  trilobite  "after 
its  own  kind."  Note  nine  lines  representing  nine  hun- 
dred species  of  ammonites,  which  brought  forth  after 
their  own  kind  through  more  or  less  of  Mesozoic  time; 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      79 

also  lines  representing  four  hundred  species  of  nautilus 
that,  while  they  existed,  brought  forth  only  *' after  their 
kind,''  without  the  slightest  trace  of  ever  having  deviated 
from  that  rule.  Again  there  are  seven  hundred  species  of 
the  ganoids  of  which  the  same  may  be  aflSrmed. 

To  represent  each  species  of  plants  and  animals  by 
lines  an  inch  apart  we  should  have  to  extend  the  chart  to 
ten  miles  in  length  instead  of  one  foot.  In  that  chart 
every  line  an  inch  apart  for  ten  miles  would  represent  a 
species  that  so  far  as  knoAvn  has  reproduced  its  own 
species — brought  forth  ** after  its  kind,"  as  Genesis  ds- 
clares. 

To  illustrate  the  supposed  genealogy  of  the  horse,  in- 
stead of  lines  six  inches  long  representing  the  fixity  of 
some  species  through  all  geologic  time,  five  lines  each  a 
fraction  of  an  inch  long  represent  species  that  are  sup- 
posed to  have  passed  from  one  to  another  in  an  ascend- 
ing scale.  Men  have  guessed  that  in  the  last  fraction  of 
geologic  time,  the  modern  period,  the  orohippus  merged 
into  the  mesohippus,  and  so  on.  In  other  words,  the  oro- 
hippus did  not  bring  forth  after  its  kind,  but  brought 
forth  of  mesohippus  kind;  and  that  the  mesohippus  of 
America  brought  forth  the  miohippus  of  Europe,  and 
this  brought  forth  the  protohippus  and  that  the  pliohip- 
pus,  and  this  the  equus.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  one  of  these  forms  was  the  direct  descend- 
ant of  any  of  the  others — it  is  mere  supposition.  So  far  as 
anything  is  yet  kuown,  every  plant  and  animal  has 
brought  forth  after  its  kind. 

To  quote  from  an  address  of  the  author's  on  **The 
Scientific  Accuracy  of  Genesis  I,"  an  abstract  of  which 
was  recently  published : 

**The  same  holds  true  of  the  fancied  descent  of  several 


80      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

pachyderm  animals  from  some  primal  ungulate  in  the 
earlier  strata.  The  supposition  is  that  some  one  species 
in  the  past  was  directly  or  indirectly  the  parent  of  several 
lines  of  hybrids,  or  mongrels,  and  finally  developed  into 
the  tapir,  elephant,  rhinoceros,  and  so  on.  But  there  is 
not  the  slightest  evidence  that  that  has  been  the  case. 
Science  refers  to  what  is  known,  and  I  am  speaking  of 
Science  and  Genesis;  and  so  far  as  anything  is  known, 
the  rocks  confirm  the  records. 

**But  the  most  curious  thing  in  connection  with  this 
theory  that  plants  and  animals  have  not  brought  forth 
after  their  kind  is  the  supposition  that  if  a  species  can 
be  found  that  is  closely  allied  to  some  other  species,  the 
fact  would  prove  that  those  other  species  have  merged 
one  into  another.  An  eminent  English  man  of  science 
once  supposed  that  the  discovery  of  two  species  in  wide 
gaps  between  other  species  proved  that  one  of  those 
species  had  merged  into  the  other,  and,  inf erentially,  that 
all  of  our  ten  miles  of  parallel  lines  had  come  from  some, 
perhaps,  single  line ;  or  at  least  from  a  very  few. 

*^So,  of  the  connection  between  the  anthropoid  apes 
and  man.  The  idea  seems  to  prevail  that  if  we  can  dis- 
cover even  a  single  specimen  of  an,  as  yet,  undiscovered 
species,  existing  between  the  ape  and  man,  that  this  dis- 
covery alone  would  prove  that  man  sprang  from  the 
ape.  But,  in  fact,  it  would  not  prove  that  assumption  any 
more  than  the  discovery  of  Eros  proves  that  Mars  once 
traveled  the  Earth's  orbit,  and  that  all  of  the  planets 
have  been  splashed  off  from  the  surface  of  the  sun.  The 
similarity  is  very  close,  the  cases  are  parallel,  but  to  show 
it  would  require  a  discussion  upon  which  we  cannot  enter 
in  a  single  evening's  address.  I  can  only  repeat  that  so 
far  as  science,  as  opposed  to  conjecture,  is  concerned, 


f*»^ 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      81 

everything  in  the  records  of  creation  confirms  the  written 
records  in  Genesis  I. 

**It  is  maintained  that  the  records  in  the  rocks  are  so 
imperfect  that  it  may  yet  be  proved  that  Genesis  is 
wrong.  But  these  records  are  perfect  enough  to  establish 
the  fixity  of  species,  in  some  instances  through  all  geologic 
time,  and  in  thousands  of  other  cases  through  all  of 
some  geologic  periods  or  large  portions  of  them.  In 
establishing  Genesis  the  rocks  are  not  at  fault.  It  is  only 
when  we  wish  to  prove  that  Genesis  is  wrong  that  we  have 
to  appeal  to  the  imperfections  in  the  geologic  records. 
But  so  far  as  science — that  which  is  known — is  con- 
cerned, without  the  suggestion  of  dissent,  the  rocks  con- 
firm the  records  of  Genesis  I. 

**Add  to  this  the  fact  that  a  transmutation  of  species 
has  never  been  known  to  occur  in  geologic  or  modern 
times.  The  invariability  with  which  each  produces  **  after 
its  kind''  suggests  a  law  of  necessity  that  this  must  be 
the  case. 

**Add  to  this  the  admission  of  Darwin  that  if  design 
is  manifest  in  the  universe,  or  that  if  anything  exists 
except  for  utilitarian  ends,  the  theory  opposed  to  Genesis 
is  false. 

**Add  to  this  the  universal  barrenness  of  hybrids  and 
the  constant  tendency  to  revert  to  type,  and  many  other 
considerations  of  the  same  kind,  and  we  have  a  portion 
of  one  line  of  argument — where  several  exist — in  favor 
of  the  correctness  of  the  statement  that  each  plant  and 
animal  produces  *  after  its  kind.'  " 

Indefinitely  more  might  be  said  along  the  same  line, 
but  enough  has  been  said  perhaps  already  to  make  it 
pertinent  to  raise  a  question  here.  Is  it  scientific  to  as- 
sume that  all  this  mass  of  evidence  must  go  for  nothing. 


82      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

and  that  the  truth  is  found  in  a  theory  of  phylogenetic 
zoology  that  is  rapidly  losing  ground  in  Europe  t 

Upon  the  side  of  permanence,  fixity  of  species,  we  have 
the  testimony  from  the  records  in  geology  without  the 
suggestion  of  dissent,  confirmed  by  the  statements  in 
Genesis  I,  as  commonly  understood  and  as  interpreted  by 
Darwin.  Upon  the  other  side  we  have  a  few  vague 
analogies  or  inferences,  some  of  which  point  one  way  and 
some  another,  e.  g. :  The  little  caruncle  in  the  corner  of 
the  eye  is  claimed  as  evidence  that  man  has  descended 
from  some  nocturnal  bird,  while  the  vermiform  append- 
age is  claimed  as  evidence  that  he  descended  from  some 
marsupial  quadruped.  Is  it  scientific  to  assume  that  all 
of  the  eviden,ce  for  permanence  of  species,  a  little  of 
which  has  been  cited  above,  is  to  go  for  nothing  as  out- 
weighed by  a  few  analogies,  inferences  and  speculations 
which  have  no  facts  to  sustain  them? 

But  here  again  we  are  confronted  by  the  difficulty  of 
attaching  a  clear,  definite,  tangible  idea  to  the  word 
evolution,  and  nothing  can  be  said  upon  either  side  of 
the  question  but  what  can  be  strained  to  support  some 
one  of  the  various  theories  of  evolution.  As  one  has  said, 
' '  Darwin  may  be  in  error,  Huxley  may  be  wrong,  Mivart 
may  be  wide  of  the  mark,  Haeckel  may  be  mistaken,  Cope 
may  misjudge  and  Spencer  be  at  fault,  but  evolution  is 
a  great  and  established  fact.  * '  Of  course,  for  one  can  not 
admit  the  existence  of  anything  without  admitting  evo- 
lution if  everything  distinctive  in  the  term  is  left  out; 
but  is  it  scientific  to  build  upon  the  theory  thus  emptied 
of  meaning  the  superstructures  it  could  hardly  sustain 
if  all  the  ideas  thus  eliminated  remained  in  it?  Is  it 
scientific  to  build  the  same  superstructures  upon  the 
creative  evolution  of  Agassiz,   Gray,   McCosch,   Baden 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      83 

Powell,  the  Duke  of  Argyll  and  others,  as  upon  the 
atheistic  evolution  of  some  others  ?  Is  it  scientific  to  re- 
write sacred  history  so  as  to  make  it  correspond  with 
inferences  drawn  from  an  hypothesis  that  has  nothing 
but  imagination  to  stand  upon?  It  may  be  urged,  of 
course  that  there  are  facts  upon  which  this  hypothesis 
is  based.  There  are  indeed  facts  which  are  supposed  in 
some  measure  to  sustain  the  theory,  but  thus  far  the  con- 
nection between  them  is  purely  imaginary,  as  before 
noted  in  the  supposed  genealogy  of  the  horse.  There  are, 
as  everyone  knows,  the  remains  of  the  orohippus,  meso- 
hippus,  protohippus  and  so  on,  but  what  evidence  is  there 
that  the  orohippus  did  not  appear  as  such  and  disappear 
without  undergoing  any  modification  of  form  t  So  of  all 
the  others.  That  the  mesohippus  is  the  lineal  descendant 
of  the  orohippus,  and  so  on,  is  pure  imagination  with  the 
presumptive  arguments  of  the  known  fixity  of  species 
against  it.  Farther,  the  remains  of  the  Anchitheriura  and 
Hipparion — very  similar  in  form — are  not  in  the  line  of 
descent,  and  that  some  horses  in  the  past  were  not  so 
derived  is  apparent,  from  the  fact  previously  stated  that 
Darwin  found  and  recognized  the  tooth  of  a  horse  con- 
temporary with  some  of  the  earlier  so-called  progenitors 
of  the  horse.  We  do  not  claim  these  as  positive  proofs, 
but  they  certainly  present  a  mountain  of  probability  that 
one  was  not  derived  from  the  other,  to  offset  the  mere 
fancy  that  they  were. 

Again,  the  fact  that  certain  forms  of  life  appear  that 
seem  to  be  between  the  fish  and  the  bird  is  assumed  to 
prove  that  birds  are  evolved  from  fishes.  But  is  there 
any  evidence  to  show  that  any  such  forms  have  not  ex- 
isted as  they  now  are  from  their  first  appearance  to  the 
present!    Millions  of  other  forms  have  so  remained  un- 


84      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Beligion 

changed;  why  not  these?  The  presumptive  evidence  is 
all  in  favor  of  the  supposition  that  these  also  have  so 
remained,  and  there  is  nothing  but  a  fancy  that  they  are 
transitional  forms  between  the  lower  and  the  higher 
forms  of  life.  This  presumptive  evidence  is  immensely 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  fully  developed,  perfectly 
formed  birds  now  exist  and  have  existed  for  ages  without 
a  suggestion  of  variation,  except  when  such  variation  has 
been  forced  by  cultivation.  Moreover  the  remains  of  per- 
fectly formed  birds  have  been  found  in  as  old  formations 
as  the  Jurassic,  and  now  there  is  so  little  suggestion  of 
change  in  bird  life  that  four  hundred  varieties  of  hum- 
ming birds  exist  in  one  locality,  of  which  some  feathers 
would  never  be  mistaken  for  those  of  another  variety. 

The  Balanoglossus  is  supposed  to  be  a  connecting  link 
between  worms  and  the  vertebrates.  But  we  have  worms 
now  and  vertebrates  from  the  lowest  forms  to  man.  Is  it 
probable  that  some  worms  millions  of  years  ago  produced 
Balanoglossus  offspring,  and  they  in  turn  produced  ver- 
tebrate animals,  and  so  on,  while  some  worms  continued 
to  beget  worm  progeny  to  the  present  day  ?  If  probable, 
is  the  probability  greater  than  the  probability  that  like 
thousands  of  other  species  of  animals  it  first  appeared  in 
its  present  form  ?  The  same  questions  may  be  asked  con- 
cerning the  Bathybius,  and  Amoeba  that  are  supposed 
to  be  initial  or  transitional.  Now  is  it  scientific  to  base 
conclusions  of  the  greatest  moment  upon  imaginary  con- 
nections of  facts?  To  state  the  question  is  to  answer  it. 
Science  is  but  the  discovery  of  facts  and  the  tracing  of  ac- 
tual, not  imaginary,  connections  between  them.  The  Cape 
to  Cairo  railroad  in  Africa  is  approaching  Victoria  Falls 
from  both  north  and  south.  When  the  two  sections  reach 
the  river  on  opposite  sides  there  will  be  the  fact  that 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      85 

road  extends  north  to  Cairo  and  south  to  the  Cape,  but 
it  will  require  something  more  than  an  imaginary  bridge 
over  the  chasm  to  make  it  safe  to  run  trains  across.  It 
would  not  be  safe  to  attempt  to  run  a  train  across  an 
imaginary  bridge,  but  it  would  be  just  as  scientific  to 
attempt  that  as  to  build  vast  structures  of  philosophy, 
theology  and  history  upon  imaginary  connections  with 
other  facts. 

Whatever  the  future  may  have  in  store,  at  present 
there  is  no  actual  connection  between  facts  such  as  to 
warrant  the  vast  structures  that  have  been  built  upon 
the  fancied  relations  between  them.  Is  it  scientific! 
Again  I  say  to  ask  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  To  call 
such  proceedings  science  or  scientific  is  to  use  the  term 
in  a  loose,  unmeaning,  bastard  sense  that  is  a  travesty  on 
its  real  meaning  and  an  insult  to  true  science.  It  is 
because  it  has  been  so  frequently  abused  that  the  term 
itself  has  become  a  stench  to  the  truly  scientific  spirit. 
It  is  ** science  falsely  so-called,"  and  all  of  its  contradic- 
tions to  revealed  religion  are  but  **the  oppositions  of 
science  falsely  so-called.'' 

And  the  same  observations  hold  with  increased  force 
with  reference  to  the  recent  adjustments  of  philosophy 
and  religion  to  the  supposition  that  man  has  developed 
from  the  lower  animals.  There  are  facts,  of  course,  in 
embryology,  facts  in  zoology  and  natural  history,  but  the 
connection  of  those  facts  with  any  theory  of  such  develop- 
ment is  purely  imaginary.  There  is  a  little  caruncle  at 
the  inner  corner  of  the  eye,  but  that  it  is  a  vestige  of  a 
nictitating  membrane  and  proves  that  man  descended 
from  a  nocturnal  bird  is  pure  imagination.  There  is  the 
vermiform  appendix,  but  that  it  is  vestigial  of  a  greater 
and  perhaps  useful  appendix,  and  proves  that  man  has 


86      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

descended  from  some  marsupial  animal  is  imagination. 
There  is  in  the  human  embryo  the  *  *  lanugo, ' '  but  to  sup- 
pose that  fact  to  prove  that  primeval  man  was  hairy  and 
descended  from  some  hairy  animal  ancestor  is  pure 
imagination.  So  of  other  fancied  proofs.  All  that  any- 
thing along  that  line  can  do  is  to  suggest  lines  of  inquiry, 
but  if  they  point  to  facts  the  record  of  those  facts  could 
be  found  in  the  rocks.  They  prove  nothing,  and  even 
suggest  little  in  the  matter  concerning  which  they  arc 
forced  to  do  such  great  service. 

The  caruncle  of  the  eye  may  serve  some  useful  purpose 
connected  with  the  lachrymal  duct,  the  vermiform  ap- 
pendix may  have  a  function,  as  has  been  suggested 
recently,  of  lubricating  the  intestines.  So  of  other 
vestigial  organs.  Men  have  never  yet  exhausted  the 
resources  of  infinite  wisdom,  and  purposes  of  use  and 
beauty  may  be  served  by  means  of  which  we  have  as  yet 
no  knowledge. 

With  reference  to  the  derivation  of  man  the  rocks  are 
silent,  for  no  trace  of  a  fossil  man  has  ever  been  found. 
But  there  is  evidence  regarding  his  derivation  that  should 
have  weight.  It  is  scientific  to  accept  evidence.  Very 
little  of  any  man's  scientific  knowledge  today  has  been 
of  his  own  discovery.  Nearly  all  of  it  has  been  taken  from 
written  or  spoken  testimony.  It  is  scientific  to  accept 
well  authenticated  testimony.  If  it  is  not,  Kepler  was 
not  scientific  in  accepting  the  evidence  that  formed  the 
basis  for  his  celebrated  *  *  Third  Law. '  *  But  he  was  right 
in  accepting  the  evidence  and  correct  in  his  use  of  it,  for 
the  principle  of  that  law  is  demonstrable  and  has  been 
demonstrated.  It  is  scientific  to  admit  evidence  when  the 
authority  of  the  source  has  been  reasonably  established. 
Coimogony  and  geology  have  established  the  terse,  literal, 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      87 

scientific  accuracy  of  many  statements  in  Genesis  I.  This 
fact  should  take  its  testimony  out  of  the  nimbus  of  vague, 
indefinite  nebulosity  that  has  enshrouded  it.  Its  state- 
ments are  clear,  clean-cut,  explicit  and  accurate,  and  en- 
titled to  a  respectful  hearing.    What  is  that  testimony  ? 

'*  And  God  said  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our 
likeness  *  •  •  •  So  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him;  male  and 
female  created  he  them. ' '  But  of  course  we  are  met  with 
the  argument  that  this  may  be  true,  but  he  may  have 
taken  millions  of  years  through  transmutation  of  species 
in  which  to  do  it.  Darwin  did  not  so  understand  it. 
Geology  absolutely  confirms  similar  statements  concern- 
ing vegetables  and  lower  animals  as  Darwin  understood 
those  statements.  If  such  evidence  is  to  be  assumed  as 
false  there  is  no  foundation  in  nature  for  any  science 
that  has  for  its  field  of  investigation  the  orderly  succes- 
sion of  plants,  animals  or  men  from  ancestors.  If  higher 
forms  have  been  derived  by  gradual  differentiations 
from  lower  forms,  first,  billions  of  transitional  forms 
should  be  found  for  every  terminal  one  that  has  been 
found,  whereas  not  one  has  been  discovered  and,  second, 
any  divergence  whatever  outside  of  the  limits  of  a  clearly 
defined  species  would  invalidate  the  testimony  of  nature 
as  to  the  orderly  succession  of  species,  and  make  the 
result  so  uncertain  that  a  science  of  zoology  would  be  im- 
possible. If  on  the  other  hand  divergence  comes  by  leaps 
or  bounds  as  Darwin  suggests  as  possible  and  illustrates 
by  a  diagram,  that  is,  if  a  species  may  have  brought  forth 
after  its  kind  for  thousands  of  years  or  through  an  entire 
geological  age  and  then  give  rise  to  a  half  dozen  or  even 
one  different  species  the  case  as  to  the  possibility  of 
science  is  indefinitely  worse.    It  would  be  like  trying  to 


88      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

construct  a  science  of  astronomy  where  any  heavenly 
body  was  likely  to  start  off  at  any  moment  upon  a 
different  orbit  or  burst  into  a  dozen  pieces  and  each  one 
pursue  a  different  and  widely  distant  orbit  of  its  own. 
Anything  like  science  would  be  impossible  and  all  condi- 
tions of  knowledge  would  be  reduced  to  chaos.  Is  it  scien- 
tific then  to  assume  that  all  the  evidence  in  nature  and 
revelation  as  to  fixity  of  species  is  to  go  for  naught  and 
that  history,  philosophy  and  theology  are  to  be  re- written 
in  the  interest  of  such  chaotic  relations  ? 

Is  it  scientific  to  reject  all  the  evidence  of  Genesis  as  to 
the  origin  of  man  and  conclude  that  he  has  descended 
from  an  avis  ancestor  because  in  the  corner  of  the  human 
eye  is  a  supposed  vestige  of  the  nictitating  membrane  of 
some  ancient  nocturnal  bird,  or  from  the  horse  because  he 
has  the  platysma  myoides  of  the  neck,  homologous  with 
the  useful  paniculus  carnosus  of  the  horse,  or  from  the 
ass  because  he  has  some  useless  ear  muscles  while  in 
that  animal  they  are  larger  and  useful,  or  from  the  ape 
because  of  the  coccyx  or  from  some  other  animal  because 
of  the  lanugo  in  the  embryo? 

To  call  such  proceedings  philosophical  or  such  pro- 
cesses scientific  is  to  bring  both  terms  into  contempt.  No 
wonder  the  partisans  of  such  philosophy  and  science  find 
a  conflict  between  ** science''  and  religion.  We  can  ex- 
claim with  Paul,  ''Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through 
philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men, 
after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ.'* 
Or  again,  '  *  Oh  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to 
thy  trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  op- 
positions of  science  falsely  so-called,  which  some  pro- 
fessing have  erred  concerning  the  faith." 

In  these  few  thoughts  there  has  been  no  attempt  to 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      89 

sustain  or  overthrow  any  system  of  phylogenetic  zoology, 
but  to  present  some  evidence  and  to  raise  the  question, 
Is  the  balance  of  evidence  in  favor  of  any  system  of 
zoology  involving  the  transmutation  of  species  suffi- 
ciently great  to  be  admitted  as  absolute  truth  or  near 
enough  to  it  to  warrant  the  tremendous  structures  of 
history,  philosophy  and  theology  that  have  been  based 
upon  it  as  if  it  were  absolute  truth?  We  might  raise 
another  question,  Is  the  balance  of  evidence  such  as  to 
sustain  any  theory  of  organic  evolution  until  the  term 
is  emptied  of  everything  distinctive  in  it  ?  If  we  take  the 
term  evolution  and  empty  it  of  all  the  distinctive  views  of 
representative  evolutionists  of  the  past  generation,  it  is 
sustained  by  all  the  evidence  of  geology  as  the  creative 
evolution  of  Gray,  McCosh,  Baden  Powell,  the  Duke  of 
Argyll,  of  Dawson  and  Agassiz  and  many  other  firm 
believers  in  the  inspired  records.  As  the  Duke  of  Argyll 
says,  *  *  It  is  as  certain  as  any  fact  of  history  that  creation 
has  had  a  history.  It  has  not  been  a  single  act  done  and 
finished  once  for  all,  but  a  long  series  of  acts,  a  work  con- 
tinuously pursued  through  an  inconceivable  lapse  of  time. 
It  is  another  fact  equally  certain  respecting  this  work, 
that  as  it  has  been  pursued  in  time  so  also  it  has  been 
pursued  by  method.  There  is  an  observed  order  of  facts 
in  the  history  of  creation,  both  in  the  organic  and  in  the 
inorganic  world."  No  one  would  deny  this.  It  is  but  a 
re-statement  of  Genesis  I,  and  there  has  never  been  any 
controversy  over  the  term  as  thus  defined,  until  the  ad- 
vent of  men  who  would  fill  it  with  other  meanings  that 
have  no  warrant  in  facts. 

Whatever  may  be  the  outcome  of  present  discussicDS 
or  future  discovery,  there  is  now  no  foundation  in  facts, 
logically  connected,  upon  which  to  build  any  structures 


90      Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

that  could  not  be  based  upon  the  literal  and  exact  scien- 
tific facts  recorded  in  Genesis  I.  Thus  far  that  chapter 
is  the  rock  foundation  of  exact  science  as  well  as  of 
revealed  religion. 

We  have  thus  considered  some  of  the  essential  state- 
ments in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  with  some  of  their 
corroborative  evidences  in  nature.  There  is  a  prac- 
tically infinite  probability  that  they  are  correct.  At 
least  they  are  indefinitely  more  probable  than  any 
theories  that  are  opposed  to  their  correctness.  Ancient 
astronomy  began  to  accumulate  the  facts  upon  which 
is  established  the  probability  that  the  earth  at  one  time 
was  '^emptiness,  vacancy. ''  The  modern  sciences  of  as- 
tronomy, chemistry,  optics,  mathematics,  spectrum 
analysis  and  others  have  brought  that  probability  in- 
finitely near  to  a  demonstration.  The  primitive  condi- 
tion of  the  earth  as  ^Uohu,  bohu*'  is  as  satisfactorily 
settled  as  if  men  had  seen  that  condition  with  their  own 
eyes,  as  indeed  a  similar  condition  may  actually  have 
been  seen  in  the  recent  nebula  around  Nova  Persei.  This 
condition  involves  the  necessity  for  creation,  while  the 
condition  renders  also  more  probable  his  declaration  con- 
cerning creation.  According  to  real  science  the  fact  of 
making  implies  a  maker,  the  fact  of  creation  implies  a 
Creator.  The  first  two  verses  in  Genesis  I  are  correct  in 
their  statements.  The  rest  of  the  chapter  to  the  appear- 
ance of  life  follows  necessarily.  There  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  the  statements  as  to  the  origin  of  life  are 
correct.  The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  narrative  of 
solid  facts.  It  is  a  true  foundation  for  every  science 
affected  by  it,  the  rock  foundation  for  revealed  religion 
that  is  built  upon  it. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      91 

SUPERORGANIC   EVOLUTION 

A  few  words  upon  this  subject  may  not  be  out  of  place 
here.  Much  of  modern  speculation  is  based  upon  the 
assumption  that  in  the  infancy  of  the  human  race  men 
were  of  a  very  low  order  of  beings  and  that  there  has 
been  a  gradual,  steady  movement  upward,  without  as- 
sistance from  outside  himself,  until  the  present  civiliza- 
tion of  Europe  and  America  has  been  reached.  Facts, 
however,  hardly  sustain  any  such  theory.  Archaeology 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  farther  back  we  go  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  race,  the  higher  the  degree  of  civilization.  At 
least,  this  seems  to  be  the  case  in  that  part  of  the  world 
that  has  been  universally  considered  as  the  cradle  of  the 
race,  as  Asia  Minor  and  Egypt. 

The  pyramids  of  Egypt  show  degeneration  rather  than 
advance.  The  oldest  one  is  not  only  the  largest  but  im- 
measurably transcends  all  the  others  in  its  suggestive- 
ness,  not  to  say,  its  teachings. 

Ruins  indicating  a  high  degree  of  intelligence  are  scat- 
tered through  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America  as 
well  as  in  the  islands  of  the  Pacific,  and  these  latter  are 
now  occupied  by  the  most  inhuman  cannibals  and  head 
hunters.  The  Chinese  have  deteriorated  from  what  they 
were  2,000  years  ago.  The  sacred  books  of  India  in- 
dicate an  indefinitely  higher  condition  of  life  and  morals 
than  exist  in  that  country  to-day. 

Alfred  Russell  Wallace,  on  the  eve  of  his  ninetieth 
birthday,  as  reported,  says,  *'Man  has  shown  no  im- 
provement either  intellectually  or  in  morals  from  the 
days  of  the  earliest  Egyptians  and  Syrians  7,000  years 
ago  to  the  keel  laying  of  the  latest  dreadnaught. '  *  He 
then  goes  on  to  say,  **  There  has  been,  of  course,  a  great 
accumulation  of  human  knowledge,  but  for  all  that  we 


92      Gen^s,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

are  no  cleverer  than  the  ancients.  The  average  of  man- 
kind will  remain  the  same  until  natural  selection  steps 
in  to  raise  it. ' '  He  undoubtedly  states  a  fact  until  he  gets 
to  the  remedy.  Natural  selection  has  had  a  chance  to 
operate,  has  been  operating  through  all  those  7,000  years 
and  still  we  have  not  only  the  average  man,  but  we  still 
have  men  living  in  the  stone  age,  we  have  cave  dwellers 
and  more  than  that  we  have  races  that  have  not  yet 
reached  the  condition  of  using  stone  implements  or  living 
in  caves.  The  Cooboos  or  Kubus  of  southern  Sumatra 
still  live  like  pigs,  picking  up  nuts,  berries,  edible  roots 
and  so  on,  with  no  habitations  and  the  only  difference 
they  know  between  a  living  and  a  dead  person  is  that  the 
dead  do  not  breathe.  They  leave  their  dead,  unburied, 
where  they  fall. 

The  world  is  strewed  with  the  ruins  of  extinct  civiliza- 
tions where  now  the  rudest  barbarism  prevails. 

What  is  the  cause  of  this  decay?  The  apostle  Paul 
cannot  be  far  from  the  truth,  '*For  the  invisible  things 
of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his 
eternal  power  and  Godhead  so  that  they  are  without  ex- 
cuse: Because  that,  when  they  knew  God  they  glorified 
him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful;  but  became  vain 
in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart  was  dark- 
ened. Professing  themselves  to  be  wise  they  became 
fools,  and  so  on.  There  is  rich  food  for  thought  in  that 
first  chapter  of  his  letter  to  the  Romans.  Divine  revela- 
tion foretold  the  doom  of  many  cities  and  nations  and 
history  has  verified  those  predictions.  These  may  illus- 
trate the  case  of  those  civilizations  that  have  not  been 
mentioned  in  holy  writ.  In  the  unrenewed  man  there  is 
no  inherent,  uplifting  force.    But  to  those  who  have  been 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      93 

*born  of  the  Spirit,*  to  those  who,  by  accepting  Christ 
and  believing  on  Him,  have  been  *born  again'  there  is 
imparted  an  uplifting  force  and  as  the  individual  rises, 
civilizations  rise. 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Fall  of  Man 

IF  one  had  been  stationed  on  some  nearby  star,  had 
seen  the  flash  of  newly-created  nebula  and  then 
had  watched  it  as  it  formed  its  rolling  spheres 
circling  around  and  completing  the  solar  system, 
the  evidence  as  to  its  creation  and  formation  could  hard- 
ly have  been  clearer  than  it  now  is.  Further,  if  one  had 
heard  with  his  physical  ears  an  audible  fiat,  ''Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  grass, '^  and  so  on,  the  evidence  could 
hardly  have  been  more  conclusive  as  to  the  origin  of  life 
upon  the  planet  than  it  is  now.  And  if  the  whole  pro- 
cess had  been  concentrated  into  seven  of  our  earth  days, 
the  facts  could  hardly  have  been  more  vivid  and  real 
than  they  are  at  present.  Facts  do  not  change  their 
nature  by  reason  of  age.  No  human  eye  saw  or  ear  heard, 
but  He  who  ''spake  and  it  was  done,''  who  "commanded 
and  it  stood  fast,''  kindly  revealed  the  facts  to  one  who 
wrote  them  down  for  our  instruction. 

This  chapter  is  the  basis  of  the  Bible.  Although  com- 
posed of  many  books  written  in  different  periods,  it  bean 
the  marks  of  unity  and  of  ultimate  authorship.  The  first 
of  Genesis  alone  could  mark  it  as  unique.  It  is  not 
merely  one  of  many  sacred  books.  It  stands  alone. 
There  may  be  many  books  of  human  origin  that  contain 
much  truth,  but  there  are  none  that  bear  the  stamp  and 
seal  of  Divine  authorship  that  mark  the  Bible.  It  stands 
among  books  like  the  pyramid  of  Cheops  among  the 
others.  Others  may  resemble  it  in  form,  some  perhaps 
approach  it  in  size,  but  there  is  an  immeasurable  distance 

94 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      95 

between  them  as  to  the  teaching.  The  Bible  is  like  the 
miracles  of  Moses  and  Aaron  in  the  presence  of  Pharoah 
as  compared  with  those  wrought  by  the  sorcerers. 

Again,  if  one  had  seen  and  heard  as  stated  above,  and 
had  known  that  all  was  done  in  the  interests  of  created 
beings,  nothing  that  could  have  secured  the  interests  of 
those  creatures  in  after  years  could  have  seemed  in- 
credible or  to  challenge  a  reasonable  belief.  Nothing 
could  be  more  reasonable  than  faith  in  the  narrative  that 
follows  that  wonderful  declaration  of  facts  in  Genesis  I. 
There  is  no  miracle  conceivable  that  could  match  in  the 
physical  world  the  great  miracle  of  creation.  In  fact 
the  very  existence  of  the  universe  is  evidence,  to  a 
thoughtful  mind,  of  a  stupendous  miracle,  and  one  that 
makes  all  other  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible  seem  prob- 
able. To  one  who  is  cognizant  of  the  constitution  of  mat- 
ter and  who  admits  that  **in  the  beginning  God*'  existed, 
creation  itself  and  all  its  sequences  as  narrated  in  the 
revealed  word  are  credible,  natural.  The  great  World 
Soul  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  the  Supreme  Intelligence  of 
Wallace,  the  ultimate  Force,  the  persistence  of  which 
(though  not  perhaps  perceived  as  a  Person)  was  the 
basis  of  Spencer's  philosophy  and  of  Farrady's  physics, 
was  known  to  Newton  as  God,  to  Moses  as  Elohim.  The 
same  Person  revealed  Himself  to  His  chosen  people  in 
many  ways  and  with  names  that  adapt  Him  to  every 
need  of  the  race,  until  in  the  fullness  of  time  He  became 
Jesus,  God  incarnate,  sacrificing  Himself  for  the  sins  of 
the  world.  This  last  is  really  the  greatest  miracle  of  all, 
the  one  most  vitally  connected  with  man's  welfare  and 
yet  one  most  stubbornly  denied  even  by  some  who  admit 
the  miracle  of  creation.  But  this  will  be  dwelt  upon 
later. 


96      Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

But  here  we  must  strenuously  contend  that  a  book 
which  opens  with  a  revelation  of  such  astounding,  intel- 
lect-transcending truths  as  those  in  Genesis  I,  is  reason- 
ably entitled  to  more  than  ordinary  consideration.  None 
of  its  statements  are  to  be  flippantly  thrown  aside.  Any 
rational  religion  involves  the  idea  of  a  wisdom  higher 
than  man's,  and  man's  highest  wisdom  is  a  confession  of 
ignorance  and  dependence  upon  that  which  is  higher. 

When  asked,  in  effect,  whether  we  are  to  believe  the 
Bible  because  of  its  contents,  or  believe  the  contents  be- 
cause they  are  in  the  Bible,  the  late  Dr.  Harper  of  Chi- 
cago University  wisely  replied  **both."  The  idea 
implied  is  that  there  are  so  many  things  in  the  Bible 
that  are  known  to  be  true  that  they  establish  the  veracity 
of  the  book  as  a  whole  and  we  must  believe  other  things 
in  the  book  which  we  should  be  under  no  obligation  to 
believe  but  for  the  established  veracity  of  the  book.  This 
principle  is  involved  in  our  every  day  affairs.  The  books 
of  the  merchant  would  be  worthless  if  this  principle 
were  not  allowed  as  valid  in  the  courts.  The  merchant 
can  prove  his  books  by  proving  that  some  of  the  entries 
are  correct.  Other  entries  have  to  be  admitted  to  be  true 
because  they  are  in  the  books.  This  principle,  of  course, 
is  not  infallible  with  reference  to  the  merchant's  books 
for  he  may  be  dishonest  and  make  false  entries.  In  other 
books  there  may  be  much  truth  and  yet,  owing  to  ignor- 
ance, there  may  be  much  that  is  untrue.  But  in  the 
Bible  there  is  no  motive  for  dishonesty,  and  a  writer  who 
knew  the  wonderful  facts  recorded  in  Genesis  I,  would 
not  belikely  in  ignorance  to  write  untruths.  Again,  some 
may  insist  that  Genesis  I  is  allegory.  No,  it  is  no  more 
allegory  than  Euclid's  geometry.  It  is  not  probable  that 
the  following  chapters  are.    It  is  true  that  the  same  man 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion      97 

may  write  the  most  profound  mathematical  works  and 
''Alice  in  Wonderland/'  A  man  has  done  it.  But  he 
did  not  write  a  chapter  of  abstract  mathematical  truth 
and  then  a  chapter  of  *  *  Alice  in  Wonderland,  * '  bind  them 
together  and  pass  them  off  as  one  piece. 

These  thoughts  apply  here  to  the  story  of  the  fall  of 
man.  Simian  anthropology  teaches  that  man  was  cre- 
ated in  the  image  of  an  ape  and  has  been  stumbling  up- 
ward. Genesis  teaches  that  he  was  created  in  the  image 
of  God  and  stumbled  downwards.  The  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  is  correct.  It  is  probable  that  the  third  chapter 
is.  Accepting  the  fact  that  the  universe  is,  that  the  nar- 
rative in  Genesis  I  is  true,  there  is  no  inherent  impro- 
bability in  the  story  of  the  fall.  It  is  customary  to  smile 
at  the  snake  story.  But  the  smile  may  arise  from  self- 
complacent  ignorance.  At  least  it  is  not  wise  to  treat  as 
frivolous  a  story  recorded  as  a  fact,  that  stands  in  such 
close  proximity  with  the  wonderful  story  that  immediate- 
ly precedes  it. 

It  is  to  be  noted  first  that  there  was  not  the  enmity  nor 
fear  existing  between  man  and  the  serpent  that  there 
now  is.  It  is  not  probable  that  Eve  would  have  been 
more  frightened  at  the  sight  of  a  large  serpent  than  we 
at  the  sight  of  a  cat.  Even  now  in  some  parts  of  the 
earth  serpents  are  domesticated  like  cats  and  for  the  same 
purpose.  Second,  it  is  coming  now  to  be  an  established 
fact  that  animals  have  a  language  or  means  of  com- 
munication among  themselves  which  may  be  understood 
by  men.  Note  the  fact  that  a  learned  professor  has  re- 
cently devoted  himself  to  the  study  of  the  Simian 
language,  and  the  report  that  a  department  has  been 
established  in  one  of  our  great  universities  for  study 
along  the  same  lines.    It  is  not  impossible  that  our  first 


98      Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

parents  understood  animal  language  and  conversed  with 
some  of  them. 

But  leaving  this  as  being  little  relevant  and  of  slight 
consequence,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  Eve  acted 
so  little  astonished.  Whether,  in  general,  animals  could 
talk  or  not,  with  very  limited  experience  she  might  not 
have  known  but  that  all  animals  could  talk.  So  to  Eve 
it  may  not  have  seemed  marvelous  that  a  beast  should 
talk,  for  if  she  had  not  talked  with  them  she  had  never 
spoken  to  any  one  but  Adam  and  was  totally  inex- 
perienced. Then  with  reference  to  the  serpent,  it  is  no 
more  marvelous  that  it  should  have  been  endued  with 
the  power  of  speech  for  the  occasion  than  that  in  later 
years,  Balaam's  ass  should  have  been  so  endued. 

Really  the  whole  question  of  probability  or  impro- 
bability goes  farther  back  than  this  first  visible  outcrop- 
ping of  evil.  Has  sin  entered  the  world?  The  question 
needs  no  answer.  It  is  too  apparent  everywhere.  Ad- 
mitting then  that  sin  is  in  the  world,  it  requires  no 
stretch  of  credulity  to  believe  that  it  entered  with  the 
first  man.  But  how?  By  yielding  to  some  temptation. 
But  why  should  temptation  in  any  form  be  allowed  to 
enter  an  earthly  Eden  ?  The  answer  is  apparent.  It  was 
to  make  virtue,  goodness,  righteousness,  moral  character 
possible  to  man.  It  must  be  an  axiom  of  ethics  that 
^-ithout  liberty  to  sin,  there  could  be  no  possibility  of 
virtue.  Without  temptation  to  unrighteousness  there 
could  be  no  righteousness.  For  some  reason  God  designed 
that  man  should  be  a  moral  agent,  not  a  mere  machine, 
a  moral  agent  with  the  possibility  of  forming  moral 
character,  of  cultivating  virtue,  growing  in  Godlikeness. 
The  idea  that  this  could  be  possible  without  temptation 
violates  the  very  basic  principle  of  morals.    There  could 


'^At 


Oeneris,  Foundation  for  Scienc$  and  Religion      W 

be  innocence  without  temptation  but  no  virtue  and  none 
of  the  rewards  of  virtue  could  have  belonged  to  one 
whose  innocence  had  never  been  tried  so  that  will  power 
had  to  be  exerted  toward  the  right.  It  is  resisting  temp- 
tation by  the  power  of  one's  own  will  that  constitutes 
virtue,  and  it  is  persistence  in  this  that  builds  up  virtu- 
ous moral  character,  Godlikeness. 

Men  have  been  unnecessarily  puzzled  over  the  ques- 
tion why  evil  was  allowed  to  come  into  the  world.  The 
basis  of  what  we  call  evil  is  in  the  benevolence  of  Qod. 
This  benevolence  has  shown  itself  in  the  construction  of 
the  universe  so  that  it  can  be  a  school  of  ethics,  a  gym- 
nasium for  the  practice  of  virtue,  the  development  of 
moral  character.  This  comes  in  two  ways.  First,  the 
awful  consequences  of  sin  in  the  suffering  it  produces 
appeals  to  others,  and  the  efforts  to  help  and  save  have 
built  up  some  of  the  most  Godlike  characters  on  earth. 
Farther  than  this,  if  there  had  been  but  one  person  in  the 
world,  he  could  have  developed  character  only  as,  by  the 
power  of  his  own  will,  he  had  resisted  the  evil  tendencies 
or  inclinations  that  are  within  himself.  While  thus  the 
basis  of  evil  is  potentially  in  the  goodness  of  God,  the 
actual,  realized  evil  is  the  result  of  man's  own  choosing. 

The  stars  move  in  their  courses,  yielding  to  the  in- 
fluences that  control  them,  and  make  no  devious  ways. 
But  there  is  no  virtue  in  the  outward  correctness  of  their 
actions.  God  could  have  made  men  in  the  same  way,  but 
there  would  have  been  no  more  merit  or  virtue  in  them 
than  in  the  stars.  He  did  not  choose  to  make  them  in  that 
way.  He  did  choose  to  make  them  and  their  environ- 
ment so  that  infinite  possibilities  were  within  their  reacX 
It  follows  then  that  unless  temptation  had  come  into 
the  world,  the  whole  machinery  of  the  universe  would 


100    0$nuis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

have  been  worthless  for  the  purpose  of  developing  free 
agents  into  virtuous  moral  characters. 

A  celebrated  evangelist  was  recently  asked,  *  *  If  God  is 
all-powerful  and  all-good,  why  doesn't  he  kill  the  devil  t" 
The  answer  could  have  been,  because  the  purpose  of  God 
now  is  the  same  that  it  was  at  the  outset — to  give  men  a 
chance  to  build  up  moral  character  by  resisting  tempta- 
tion. And  there  is  no  inherent  improbability  in  the 
statements  regarding  a  personal  devil  who  in  the  guise 
of  a  serpent  or  in  the  person  of  the  serpent  presented 
the  first  temptation.  The  story  would  seem  violently 
improbable  were  it  not  for  the  connection  in  which  it  oc- 
curs. But  the  universe  exists,  and  we  have  the  record 
of  its  origin  in  a  way  that  admits  of  no  dispute  that  it 
came  as  a  revelation  from  its  Maker.  The  whole  story  is 
of  miraculous  events.  It  is  itself  a  miracle  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  word  is  commonly  used.  The  story  of  the 
fall  is  a  part  of  that  record.  It  is  not  to  be  tossed  aside 
with  a  smile  of  self-complacent  incredulity.  It  will  not 
be  so  treated  by  those  who  are  wise  enough  to  feel  their 
owTi  ignorance  and  bow  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Highest. 
He  has  evidently  revealed  the  truth  to  us  in  the  records 
He  has  inspired.  The  fact  of  the  fall  is  one  of  the  bottom 
facts  in  human  history,  appallingly  apparent  every- 
where. 

But  the  question  arises,  was  the  temptation  presented 
by  a  person,  or  by  an  innate  propensity  to  evil?  It  is 
wiser  to  answer  from  the  records  than  from  any  precon- 
ceived ideas  of  how  it  ought  to  be  answered.  There  is 
evidence  that  the  tempter  was  a  person  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  term  persona  is  applied  to  other  spiritual 
beings.  The  idea  does  not  necessarily  involve  that  of 
locality  or  form,  or  space.    God  is  a  person  and  yet  not 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Sxdence  and  ReHgioTt,    101 

subject  to  these  material  limitations.  In  the  records 
there  is  the  same  evidence  of  the  personality  of  Satan 
that  there  is  of  the  personality  of  God.  If  there  is  any 
difference  it  is  in  degree  and  not  in  kind.  Man  has  fal- 
len and  that  fall  necessitates  Redemption. 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Story  of  Redemption 

THIS  story  begins  in  Genesis  and  is  continued 
through  all  the  book  that  is  founded  upon  Gen- 
esis I.  The  promise  was  made  in  Eden  that  the 
seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's 
head.  From  there  it  runs  through  nearly  or  quite  every 
book  of  the  Bible  until  it  reaches  its  climax  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  Redemption  itself  including  the 
atonement  has  its  necessary  origin  in  two  facts,  Justice 
and  Sin.  In  the  very  nature  of  things  Divine  justice 
requires  that  sin  should  be  punished.  As  in  the  material 
universe,  from  a  given  force  what  is  lost  as  force  must  be 
made  up  in  heat,  light,  electricity  or  some  other  of  the 
correlated  forces  of  nature,  so  in  the  moral  universe, 
what  is  lost  from  righteousness  must  be  made  up  in  suf- 
fering. Sin  must  suffer  its  penalty.  And  this  is  true 
whether  as  an  attribute  justice  inheres  in  the  nature  of 
God  to  be  administered  independently  of  governmental 
relations,  or  whether  it  exists  merely  as  a  governmental 
necessity.  And  whether  the  ** nature  of  things''  existed 
first  and  God  adapted  Himself  to  it,  or  whether  He  ex- 
isted first  and  adapted  **the  nature  of  things"  to  Him- 
self, is  not  essential  in  this  discussion. 

Further,  whether  anything  exists  apart  from  the  ex- 
istence of  God,  or  whether  all  things  are  but  a  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  it  is  not  necessary  to  consider,  for  no  such 
considerations  affect  the  fact  that  justice  exists  and 
justice  demands  that  crime  against  our  fellow  men  be 
punished,  even  if  from  no  other  reason  than  as  a  restraint 
of  crime.     Justice  requires    that    sin    should  meet  its 

102 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    103 

penalty  even  if  for  no  other  reason  than  to  restrain  men 
from  sin.  But  judging  from  the  analogies  of  nature,  the 
correlation  of  forces,  to  say  nothing  of  theological  ar- 
guments, the  Calvinistic  idea  that  justice  is  an  attribute 
inherent  in  God  and  the  nature  of  things  is  most  nearly 
correct.  This  requires  that  sin  should  be  punished,  that 
crime  should  meet  its  penalty  independently  of  govern- 
mental relations.  Justice  may  have  a  deeper  origin  and 
reach  higher  than  governmental  necessity.  This  neces- 
sity may  be  a  sufficient  warrant  for  justice  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crime  in  human  society,  but  in  the  punishment 
of  sin  against  Qod,  punishment  future  and  invisible  to 
mortals,  the  sufficiency  of  this  governmental  necessity 
is  not  so  apparent.  However,  it  becomes  more  apparent 
as  we  remember  that  there  are  other  intelligences  than 
human  beings  who  are  affected  by  it. 

But  independent  of  these  and  all  other  considerations, 
justice  demands  the  punishment  of  crime  and  sin.  Con- 
sider this  necessity  first  in  human  affairs,  as  there  it  is 
most  apparent.  What  w^ould  be  the  condition  of  human 
society  if  all  laws  were  done  away  with,  or  all  penal- 
ties abrogated!  Any  such  thing  as  order,  peace  or 
safety  would  be  impossible.  Through  the  laxness  in 
the  dispensation  of  justice,  we  have  already  approached 
a  social  condition  that  is  well  nigh  intolerable.  Con- 
temporaneous with  and  following  the  teaching  of  loose 
theological  ideas  concerning  Divine  justice  and  loose 
administration  of  judicial  justice,  we  are  in  the  con- 
dition described  by  Hosea,  (4:2)  ''By  swearing  and 
lying  and  killing  and  stealing  and  committing  adultery, 
they  break  out  and  blood  toucheth  blood."  This  is  the 
natural  and  necessary  result  of  following  the  legal 
maxim,  ''It  is  better  that  ten  guilty  men  escape  than 


104    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

that  one  innocent  man  be  punished. '*  The  maxim  is 
false.  The  fact  is  coming  to  exist,  that  ten  innocent  per- 
sons do  suffer  for  every  guilty  person  who  escapes  due 
punishment. 

It  was  to  secure  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  num- 
ber that  God  himself  gave  laws  for  the  regulation  of 
society.  The  gist  of  those  laws,  the  ten  commandments, 
was  but  the  expression  in  words  of  eternal  principles  that 
inhere  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  This  is  a  fact, 
though  it  can  be  only  stated  here.  The  violation  of 
those  principles  involves  evil  consequences  as  a  matter 
of  necessity.  But  in  addition  to  those  natural  evil  con- 
sequences of  inherent  principles,  there  are  statutory 
penalties  decreed.  By  statutory  enactment  or  by  con- 
crete example,  that  penalty  in  every  instance  was  death, 
even  to  extreme  cases  of  the  mildest  of  the  command- 
ments. This  again  must  pass  with  the  mere  statement 
except  with  a  few  examples.  ' '  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  * '  the 
statutory  penalty  was  death;  '* steal,"  **He  that  stealeth 
a  man  ....  shall  be  put  to  death'';  ** covet,''  Achan 
coveted  the  gold  and  garment  and  suffered  the  penalty; 
'  *  false  witness, ' '  the  law  prescribed  that  it  should  be  done 
to  him  as  he  thought  to  do  to  the  one  against  whom  he 
bore  false  witness.  If  by  false  witness  he  was  compassing 
the  death  of  another,  he  was  himself  to  suffer  the  extreme 
penalty ;  *' adultery,"  the  statutory  penalty  was  death  for 
both  parties.  So  of  every  one  of  the  ten  commandments, 
death  was  the  penalty  for  the  worst  forms  of  violation 
and  there  were  other  penalties  for  the  milder  forms  of 
their  violation. 

It  is  to  be  noted  too  that  the  penalty  is  not  mere 
chastisement  designed  to  reform  the  criminal.  It  is  not 
reformatory  punishment,  but  a  satisfaction  of  justice 


0$n$sis,  Foundation  for  Sci€nc$  and  R$ligion    105 

whether  that  justice  be  independent  of  or  dependent 
upon  governmental  necessity.  But  for  offences  smaller 
than  capital  crimes  the  punishment  is  reformatory  in  so 
far  as  it  strikes  at  the  propensity  that  produces  the  crime. 
Avarice  produces  theft,  the  penalty  strikes  at  the  propen- 
sity that  produces  it,  restoration  many  times  over. 
Where  this  can  not  be,  the  penalty  resembles  the  offence 
as  a  reminder  of  it,  eye  for  an  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  burn- 
ing for  burning.  These  were  the  statutory  penalties  and 
not  mere  natural  consequences. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  further,  that  the  infliction  of  these 
penalties  was  intrusted  to  those  who  would  be  most  likely 
to  carry  them  out,  the  nearest  of  kin,  those  whose  defen- 
sive passions  would  assist  in  meting  out  justice  by  assist- 
ing to  overcome  pity.  **  Thine  eye  shall  not  pity,  nor 
thy  hand  spare."  The  good  of  society,  the  existence  of 
society  in  conditions  in  which  existence  was  tolerable 
demanded  that  justice  should  be  meted  out.  It  is  notice- 
able too  that  every  one  was  forbidden  to  attempt  the 
perversion  of  justice.  **  Thou  shalt  not  ....  counten- 
ance the  poor  man  in  his  cause*'  (Ex.  23 :2,3),  or  the  man 
who  has  a  poor  cause.  No  official  or  professional  was  al- 
lowed to  espouse  a  poor  cause,  or  from  professional  pride, 
ambition,  or  money  to  clear  the  guilty.  A  woe  is  pro- 
nounced upon  those  who  *' justify  the  wicked  for  reward'* 
(Is.  5:23).  But  on  account  of  the  prevalence  of  that 
practice  and  other  evils,  **  Therefore  is  the  anger  of  the 
Lord  kindled  against  his  people,  and  he  hath  stretched 
forth  his  hand  against  them  and  smitten  them.''  (Is. 
5:25).  Scripturally  there  is  a  kind  of  false  witness 
against  society  in  clearing  criminals  that  requires  the 
same  penalties  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  one  who  thus 
cheats  the  law  as  ought  to  have  been  inflicted  upon  the 


106    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

culprit  himself.  If  any  person  cheats  justice  by  clearing 
the  guilty,  the  same  justice  should  be  meted  out  to  him, 
and  professionalism  does  not  count  with  God.  **The 
Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffer- 
ing and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  ♦  •  *  *  and 
that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty. *'  (Ex.  34:6,7). 
His  moral 'excellencies  manifested  toward  his  people  will 
not  permit  him  to  clear  the  guilty. 

This  principle  is  written  in  nature.  There  is  a  moral 
conservation  of  the  forces  of  justice  and  righteousness 
that  what  is  lacking  in  one  must  be  made  up  in  the  other, 
and  professionalism  does  not  count  in  this  matter.  If 
any  man  cheats  justice  the  same  justice  should  be  meted 
out  to  him.  The  welfare  of  society,  the  nature  of  God 
and  **the  nature  of  things''  require  that  justice  should 
be  administered  even  if  it  has  to  be  done  in  spite  of  the 
modern  machinery  for  defeating  it.  Modern  courts  are 
not  God 's  vicegerents  to  the  extent  that  he  has  appointed 
them  and  is  always  satisfied  with  their  decisions.  Not 
that  they  are  consciously  corrupt.  It  is  probable  that 
they  never  were  more  upright.  But  the  safeguards  de- 
signed to  protect  the  innocent  are  woefully  perverted  to 
clear  the  guilty.  Whatever  its  origin,  whatever  its  na- 
ture, whatever  the  necessity  for  its  existence,  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  justice,  and  the  welfare  of  humanity 
requires  that  it  he  administered  and  that  crimes  against 
humanity  he  punished. 

So  much  for  human  law  and  the  necessity  for  justice 
in  human  affairs.  Has  it  a  broader  field  of  activity! 
Does  it  exist  only  in  the  relations  of  man  with  man,  or 
does  it  extend  beyond  these  relations  and  into  the  sphere 
of  the  Divine  government?  Evidently  it  has  this 
broader  field,  and  enters  into  the  sphere  of  the  Divine 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    107 

government.  This  is  necessarily  the  case,  if  Grod  is  a  per- 
son who  has  rights  of  his  own,  and  can  think  and  feel 
and  will.  The  first  table  of  the  decalogue  has  primarily 
to  do  with  sins  against  God.  Crimes  against  men  are 
sins  against  God,  but  farther  than  this  is  the  fact  that 
there  are  sins  directly  against  (Jod.  Idolatry,  not  only 
in  the  outward  act,  but  in  the  inner  thought  is  sin. 
Blasphemy,  the  lightly  taking  of  God's  name  upon  our 
lips,  is  sin,  any  form  of  disobedience  is  sin,  even  where 
our  fellow-men  are  not  injured.  It  is  noticeable  that  there 
are  statutory  penalties  attached  to  these  sins  as  well  as 
evil  consequences  resulting  from  them.  In  the  long  run, 
these  evil  consequences  may  be  terrible,  but  they  do  not 
suflSciently  express  the  divine  attitude  towards  sin.  The 
divine  attitude  is  expressed  by  the  statutory  penalties  at- 
tached to  violations  of  the  commandments.  Death  was 
the  penalty  of  idolatry,  of  enticement  to  idolatry,  of 
blasphemy  and  of  some  other  sins  against  God.  In  general 
**the  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.''  Death  (sentence) 
passed  upon  all  men  **for  all  had  sinned."  Whatever 
its  nature,  whatever  its  origin,  whatever  the  necessity 
for  its  existence,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  justice,  and  the 
well  being  of  all  sentient  beings  demands  that  it  be  ad- 
ministered and  that  sins  against  God  should  be  punished. 
How  then  can  any  one  escape?  The  problem  was  too 
deep  for  human  wisdom.  The  wisest  statesmen  of  old 
could  not  see  how  it  was  possible  to  forgive  sin  without 
causing  the  law  itself  to  come  into  contempt  and  be  dis- 
regarded accordingly.  But  God  solved  the  problem  that 
was  too  deep  for  men,  and  made  provision  for  all  future 
emergencies.  That  provision  is  the  planting  in  men  of 
the  instinctive  idea  of  the  efficacy  of  substitution.  When 
men  make  a  machine  some  of  whose  parts  are  likely  to 


108    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

get  out  of  order,  they  make  it  with  reference  to  the  pos- 
sibility of  renovating  those  parts.  They  thus  make  provi- 
sion for  future  contingencies.  When  God  made  man, 
he  made  the  same  provision  and  that  provision  was  made 
by  planting  in  him  the  sentiment  or  instinctive  knowl- 
edge that  vicarious  substitution  was  effectual  and  this 
makes  vicarious  sacrifice  sufficient.  The  first  men  born 
into  the  world  betray  the  presence  of  the  instinctive, 
God-implanted  sentiment,  for,  conscious  of  sin,  they 
offered  sacrifices,  and  Cain^s  offering  was  rejected, 
although  it  was  a  sacrifice  of  possessions,  while  Abel's 
was  accepted  because  in  addition  to  this,  there  was  in- 
volved vicarious  suffering,  a  type  of  the  Lamb  that  in  the 
future  was  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

Men  of  all  nations  have  shown  the  presence  of  the 
same  sentiment,  for  all  nations,  generally  speaking,  have 
felt  the  necessity  for  expiatory  sacrifices.  All  nations 
have  offered  them. 

When  God  made  man  he  made  his  spiritual  nature  with 
reference  to  the  possibility  of  saving  him  should  he  need 
salvation,  as  his  Maker  certainly  knew  that  he  would. 
That  possibility  is  in  the  instinct  implanted  in  all  human, 
and,  we  may  reason,  in  all  sentient  beings,  of  the  efficacy 
of  vicarious  sacrifice.  This  is  the  adjustment,  so  to 
speak,  of  man's  spiritual  nature  to  the  possibility  of 
salvation  without  himself  paying  the  penalty  of  .*?in.  All 
the  human  race,  angels  and  demons,  are  so  constituted  as 
to  recognize  the  efficiency  of  a  voluntary  substitution  in 
suffering  penalty.  If  one  transgresses  the  law,  another 
may  by  his  own  voluntary  suffering  satisfy  justice  so 
that  the  transgressor  may  escape  the  penalty.  Incidents 
reported  from  Central  Africa  show  the  existence  of  an 
instinctive  sense  not  only  that  demerit,  sin,  must  be 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    109 

punished,  but  that  another  and  innocent  party  may 
voluntarily  bear  the  penalty,  and  let  the  transgressor  go 
free.  If  a  current  story  be  true,  our  own  government 
has  accepted  a  voluntary  substitute  in  the  place  of  the 
guilty  party.  In  one  of  the  Southwestern  Territories  an 
Indian  murdered  a  white  man.  As  usual,  the  govern- 
ment held  the  tribe  responsible,  and  gave  them  a  limited 
time  in  which  to  surrender  the  guilty  party,  or  have  war 
declared  against  them,  and  troops  were  sent  to  the  place 
to  carry  out  the  order.  Every  effort  was  put  forth  to  find 
the  guilty  party,  but  without  success.  Finally  on  the 
evening  of  the  last  day  an  Indian  offered  himself  to  the 
assembled  chiefs  as  a  substitute.  **Take  me,"  he  says, 
** shoot  me,  and  turn  my  body  over  to  the  white."  It  was 
done,  and  what  could  the  whites  do  but  accept  it  in  the 
place  of  the  guilty  one? 

Such  voluntary  offering  of  one's  self  as  that  of  Publius 
Decius,  or  that  of  the  Athenian  king,  Menaecius  of 
Thebes,  or  of  the  daughter  of  Orion,  prove  the  existence 
of  this  instinct  in  the  people  of  those  nations,  which  en- 
abled them  to  see  that  God  could  be  just  and  yet  the 
justifier  of  all  those  who  accept  of  their  own  vicarious 
substitute.  The  spiritual  constitution  of  the  race  was 
adapted  from  the  beginning  to  this  plan  of  salvation. 

That  it  is  in  accordance  with  God's  purposes  need  not 
be  argued  with  any  one  who  believes  that  God  was  the 
author  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Sacrifices,  countless  in  num- 
ber, of  innocent  animals  were  commanded  to  be  offered 
as  types  of  the  one  great  sacrifice  of  Calvary.  Atone- 
ment in  the  orthodox  sense  is  in  harmony  with  all  God's 
teachings,  verbal  and  by  symbol. 

The  efficacy  of  vicarious  substitution  is  written  in  the 
constitution  of  nature.     It  is  supplied  in  the  kingdom 


110    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

of  grace  by  the  vicarious  atonement  made  by  God  himself 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  the  Christ.  But  note,  the  substi- 
tution must  be,  as  it  was,  vicarious  and  willing  on  the 
part  of  the  substitute.  The  Christ  was  not  unjustly  com- 
pelled to  take  the  sinner's  place.  Upon  his  Father's 
wish  he  voluntarily  offered  himself  saying,  *'Lo  I  come 
to  do  thy  will,  0  God. "  While  it  might  have  been  unjust 
for  God  to  have  compelled  his  son  or  any  other  innocent 
party  to  suffer  vicariously,  it  was  not  unjust  for  him  to 
accept  a  substitute  freely  offered  and  Jesus  says,  *  *  I  lay 
down  my  life  for  the  sheep. ' ' 

But  how  could  this  sacrifice  avail  for  those  who  died 
before  it  was  offered?  The  written  promise  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  pay  is  as  good  as  the  gold,  and  the  promise 
of  God  to  redeem  mankind  was  just  as  good  before  it 
was  redeemed  as  after.  In  the  counsels  of  God,  and  the 
knowledge  of  all  sentient  beings  who  were  immediately 
affected,  was  **the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world.*'  Even  Abel,  upon  appearing  at  the  gates  of 
paradise,  could  have  been  admitted  upon  promise  of  the 
Son  of  God  to  pay  the  penalty  of  his  sins  four  thousand 
years  hence  on  Calvary.  In  the  correlation  of  spiritual 
forces,  what  was  lost  by  the  fall  is  made  up  in  redemp- 
tion. 

These  things  are  stated  as  facts  and  as  such  they  are 
corroborated  by  certain  passages  of  scripture,  while  the 
probability  that  they  are  such  lends  additional  proba- 
bility to  the  scripture  statements  themselves.  As  facts, 
they  interpret  a  symbolism  of  the  old  dispensation,  while 
that  symbolism  verifies  the  statements  as  facts.  They 
mutually  sustain,  explain  and  verify  each  other.  The 
whole  Jewish  ritual  based  upon  sacrifices  was  typical 
of  the  atonement  of  Christ.     The  first  sacrifices  offered 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    111 

in  the  world  were  accepted  or  rejected  according  as  they 
did  or  did  not  typify  the  atonement.  All  the  God-ap- 
pointed Jewish  ritual  was  dead,  unmeaning  heathenism, 
unless  its  rites  were  types  and  symbols  of  something  in 
the  future.  But  they  were  not  dead;  they  were  not  un- 
meaning heathenism,  but  God-appointed  object  lessons 
regarding  ''the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world.''  As  stated,  Abel's  sacrifice  was  accepted 
because  of  its  symbolism  and  from  his  day  to  the  time 
when  the  great  Antitype  was  slain  on  Calvary,  every 
sacrifice  was  accepted  only  as  it  pointed  to  the  Lamb  of 
Calvary. 

As  just  stated,  all  these  circumstances,  types,  symbols, 
ritual  tend  to  corroborate,  interpret,  verify  certain  state- 
ments in  the  scriptures.  Thei  e  are  literally  hundreds  of 
these  that  have  their  plainest,  easiest,  most  harmonious 
signification  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Christ  really  took 
the  sinner's  place,  really  suffered  the  penalty  of  broken 
law,  ''the  just  for  the  unjust,"  that  God  might  be  just 
and  justify  those  who  would  accept  that  sacrifice.  This 
is  the  crux  of  the  whole  question  as  to  the  true  nature 
of  the  atonement. 

Did  Jesus  die,  not  simply  for  us  in  the  sense  of  dying 
for  our  welfare,  but  in  our  stead  ?  Did  he  come  to  teach 
men  duty,  how  to  live  by  setting  a  good  example,  and 
then  die  as  a  martyr  because  he  could  not  help  himself  1 
As  for  his  example,  the  world  had  better  examples  in 
Enoch,  Abraham,  Moses  and  others  of  the  old  prophets 
and  patriarchs  than  they  had  ever  lived  up  to.  As  for 
his  teaching,  he  taught  nothing  but  what  was  already 
written  in  the  old  scriptures,  and  as  for  his  martyrdom, 
it  is  puerile  to  say  that  he  died  because  he  could  not  help 
himself.    One  who  could  raise  the  dead  could  have  saved 


113    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Scienc$  and  Religion 

himself  from  the  power  of  human  enemies.  He  could 
have  stepped  over  the  prostrate  forms  of  those  who  came 
to  arrest  him  in  Gethsemane ;  he  could  have  stayed  away 
from  Jerusalem  altogether,  for  he  knew  what  was  com- 
ing, or  he  could  have  summoned  '*  twelve  legions  of 
angels"  ^  to  his  defense  as  he  told  Peter. 

On  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  Moses  and  Elijah 
talked  with  him  concerning  **the  decease  that  he  should 
accomplish  in  Jerusalem.  *' ^  Jesus  himself  says,  *'Now 
is  my  soul  troubled  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father 
save  me  from  this  hour  but  for  this  cause  came  I  unto 
this  hour. '  *  ^  Almost  his  first  recorded  words  refer  to 
the  necessity  for  his  death,  *  *  For  as  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  must  the  son  of  man  be 
lifted  up. "  *  A  curse  was  pronounced  upon  all  who 
violated  God's  law.  **It  is  written.  Cursed  be  he 
that  confirmeth  not  all  things  which  are  written  in 
this  law  to  do  them. ' '  ^  Man  had  broken  every  one 
of  them,  but  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  ** curse/' 
**  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  for  us:  for  it  is  written.  Cursed 
is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."  Gal.  3:10,  13.) 
He  continually  spoke  of  his  death  as  the  great  object  to 
be  **  accomplished. " 

Now  was  that  voluntary  death  a  substitution  for  the 
sinner's  merited  punishment?  The  question  must  be 
answered  by  the  scriptures  and  by  the  logic  of  events, 

1  Mat.  26 :53. 

*  Luke  9:31. 

« John  12 :27. 

*  John  3:14. 
•Deut.  27:26. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    113 

the  facts  of  history.  In  prophecy  some  of  the  classic 
passages  are  in  Is.  53.  **He  was  wounded  for  our  trans- 
gressions, he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes 
we  are  healed. "  **The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity 
of  us  all."  **For  the  transgressions  of  my  people  was 
he  stricken."  '*When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offer- 
ing for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed"  and  so  on.  **By  his 
knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many ;  for 
he  shall  hear  their  iniquities,"  **He  hath  poured  out  his 
soul  unto  death:  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors ;  and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  interces- 
sion for  the  transgressors."  These  are  a  few  passages 
from  prophecy,  all  taken  from  a  single  chapter.  But  do 
they  refer  to  Christ?  Jesus  thought  they  did,  for  he  says 
to  his  disciples,  **For  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  that  is 
wTitten  must  yet  be  accomplished  in  me,  *And  he  was 
reckoned  among  the  transgressors.'  "  (Luke  22:37.)  The 
evangelist  Mark  thought  they  did,  for  speaking  of  his 
being  crucified  between  two  thieves,  he  says,  **And  the 
scripture  was  f  ullled  which  saith,  *  *  And  he  was  numbered 
with  the  transgressors."*  Inferentially,  also,  they  con- 
sidered all  the  passages  in  the  same  chapter  as  apply- 
ing to  him  as  other  inspired  writers  did.  The  Ethiopian 
eunuch  was  reading  Is.  53  (see  Acts  8:32  and  on)  when 
Philip  interpreted  the  whole  passage  as  being  fulfilled  in 
Christ.  The  epistles  are  full  of  indirect  references  to  the 
same  passages  as  referring  to  Christ,  as  (Heb.  9:28), 
**So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many." 
I  Peter  2 :24,  **  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree."     Christ  himself  says,  **The  son  of 

*  Mark  15:28. 


114    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister  and 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many. ' '  (Matt.  20 :28) .  *  *  This 
is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins.''  (Matt.  26:28).  **As  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  must  the  son 
of  man  be  lifted  up*'  and  so  on.  Paul  exhorts  the  elders 
of  the  church  of  Ephesus, ' '  Feed  the  church  of  God  which 
he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.'' ^  Again  he 
speaks  of  **  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. ' '  ^  When  we 
were  yet  without  strength  in  due  time  Christ  died  for 
the  ungodly. "  ^  *  *  God  commendeth  his  love  toward  us, 
in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us. "  * 
**We  also  joy  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
by  whom  we  have  received  the  atonement."  *^ Christ 
our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us."  ** Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures."  *'Ye  who  some- 
time were  far  off  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ. ' ' 
'*  Christ  hath  loved  us  and  hath  given  himself  for  us  an 
offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God. "  '  *  By  his  own  blood  he 
entered  in  once  into  the  holyplace  having  obtained  eter- 
nal redemption  for  us."  *' Without  the  shedding  of 
blood  is  no  remission."  **But  now  once  in  the  end  of 
the  world  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself."  ** Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many. ' '  **  We  are  sanctified  through  the  offer- 
ing of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all. "  *  *  Ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things  as 

1  Acts  20:28. 
« Rom.  3:24. 
»Rom.  5:6. 
*Bom.  5:8. 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    115 

silver  and  gold.  .  .  .  but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot." 
** Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the 
unjust  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death 
in  the  flesh  but  quickened  in  the  spirit.''  **If  we  walk 
in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light  ....  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.'* 
In  every  way,  by  all  forms  of  expression  by  which  it  is 
possible  for  words  to  convey  ideas,  the  idea  of  Christ  as 
a  substitute  for  sinners  is  taught  in  the  scriptures. 

This  teaching  is  not  confined  to  the  meaning  of  any 
Greek  preposition  as  **pro^'  and  *'huper"  though  it  is 
distinctly  taught  by  them.  Some  people  urge  that  those 
prepositions  have  a  broader  meaning  than  **in  our  room" 
or  **in  our  stead,"  while  admitting  that  if  *'antV  were 
used  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  denying  that  the 
idea  of  substitution  was  conveyed.  But  the  prepositions 
*^pro'*  and  **huper''  often  do  mean  ** instead  of"  while 
both  Christ  and  Paul  use  that  preposition  **anti"  (in 
composition)  as  Paul,  (I  Tim.  2:6)  speaking  of  Christ, 
**Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."  {anti  lutron). 
Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom  instead  of  the  sinner. 
Christ  uses  the  same  preposition  in  the  same  way,  ' '  Even 
as  the  son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to 
minister  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,''  (Mat. 
20:28.)  {lutron  anti  pollon).  Christ  declares  unequi- 
vocally that  he  came  on  purpose  to  give  his  life  a  ransom 
instead  of  many. 

A  final  consideration  in  this  connection  is  the  statement 
of  Paul,  in  arguing  for  the  resurrection.  He  says,  (I 
Cor.  15:17,18.)  *'If  Christ  be  not  raised  your  faith  is 
vain,  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.  Then  they  also  which 
are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished. ' '  But  why  would 
they  have  been  yet  in  their  sins?    There  is  no  rational 


116    OfTiisis,  Foundation  for  S9i§ne$  <md  BeUgion 

answer  except  that  unless  Christ  had  accomplished  his 
work  no  sins  could  be  forgiven.  The  apostle  does  not 
argue  that  they  were  lacking  on  their  part.  He  does  not 
deny  that  they  had  accepted  Christ,  and  had  fully  and 
heartily  repented  of  their  sins.  He  bases  his  declaration 
entirely  upon  the  fact,  apparently,  that  unless  Christ  ^s 
work  were  fully  accomplished  no  sins  could  he  forgiven, 
the  living  were  in  their  sins  in  spite  of  repentance  and 
their  acceptance  of  Christ,  the  dead  were  lost  in  spite  of 
their,  possibly,  martyrdom.  The  Greek  word  translated 
** atonement,  (katallange)  is  from  ^ * katalasso ' *  **to  ex- 
change.** The  term  means  '*  substitution.  * '  The  atone- 
ment of  Christ  is  the  substitution  of  his  sufferings  for 
the  punishment  of  sinners.  And  yet  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  atonement  is  written  in  nature,  on  the  soul  of 
man,  taught  all  through  the  Bible  the  most  plainly  of 
any  Bible  truth,  in  spite  of  the  symbolism  of  the  original 
Hebrew  word  and  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  original, 
there  is  no  fact  so  persistently,  so  illogically,  so  incon- 
sistently denied  as  the  fact  of  the  atonement  in  its  proper 
meaning.  The  objections  are  illogical  for  they  are 
answered  by  the  logic  of  events;  the  fact  is  that  Christ 
did  die,  that  God  gave  him  to  die.  Christ  came  into  the 
world  to  die,  and  unless  he  accomplished  something  by 
his  death,  and  an  end  to  some  degree  commensurate  with 
the  sacrifice,  his  death  would  have  been  a  mere  empty 
show,a  mere  playing  to  the  galleries,  as  futile  as  wicked. 
It  is  sometimes  said  that  this  scriptural  view  of  the 
atonement  represents  God  as  unmerciful.  But  so  far  as 
this  view  has  any  weight,  it  is  an  objection  against  the 
fact  that  Christ  died  at  all.  Whether  merciful  or  un- 
merciful, Christ  did  die  upon  the  cross.  This  is  the  ad- 
mitted fact  and  it  surely  would  have  been  no  more  un- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    117 

merciful  for  God  to  send  him  into  the  world  to  die  for  a 
great  purpose  than  to  die  for  nothing.  The  fact  is, 
Christ  died.  God  **gave  his  only  begotten  son,"  Christ 
gave  himself.  What  for  ?  He  says,  '^lutron  anti  pollon. " 
It  is  said  that  an  atonement  was  not  necessary.  That  is 
not  for  us  to  decide.  If  it  had  not  been  necessary  to 
accomplish  some  object,  Christ  would  have  stayed  in 
heaven.  The  fact  however  is  He  gave  his  life.  What  for  t 
He  says,  **lutron  anti  pollon."  The  symbolism  in  the 
old  dispensation  all  pointed  to  an  atonement.  The  sacri- 
fices and  offerings  from  Abel  to  Calvary  pointed  to  an 
atonement.  Christ  gave  himself  an  offering  and  a  sacri- 
fice to  God.  He  says,  **This  is  my  blood  of  the  new 
testament  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."*  God  knew  better  than  men  about  the  neces- 
sity for  an  atonement.  It  is  sometimes  urged  that  an 
atonement  in  the  scripture  sense  is  unjust,  incredible, 
and  of  a  demoralizing  tendency.  But  so  far  as  these  are 
objections,  they  are  objections  to  the  fact  that  Christ 
died.  But  Christ  did  die.  What  fort  He  says, ''Zii^ron 
anti  pollon." 

In  general  the  answer  to  all  objections  is  an  appeal  to 
facts.  Is  it  urged  that  God  is  too  good  to  allow  the  in- 
nocent to  suffer  for  the  guilty  t  The  one  fact  most  ap- 
pallingly apparent  everywhere  and  always  is  that  the 
innocent  do  suffer  for  the  guilty,  much  more  than  the 
guilty  themselves,  and  often  instead  of  the  guilty. 
Is  it  urged  in  particular  that  God  is  too  good  to  send  His 
only  begotten  son  into  the  world  to  die  for  men  ?  But  He 
did  die.  The  argument  for  such  goodness  is  an  argument 
against  the  one  great  central  fact  of  the  universe.    Ad- 

•Mat.  26:28. 


118    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

mitting  this,  would  it  have  been  more  cruel  for  God  to 
have  suffered  Him  to  die  to  accomplish  a  great  object 
than  for  a  mere  empty  show?  And  unless  He  did  ac- 
complish something  more  than  a  show,  the  show  itself, 
except  as  a  monument  of  folly,  was  absolutely  empty, 
meaningless. 

This  fact  is  well  illustrated  by  the  familiar  incident 
of  a  boy  in  Holland.  Passing  along  a  dike  he  discovered 
a  small  break  that  he  could  stop  with  his  hand.  But 
soon  it  would  be  too  big  for  him  to  control.  Before  he 
could  get  help  or  devise  means  by  which  to  stop  the  flow 
of  water,  it  might  pass  beyond  control  and  immeasur- 
able disaster  befall  his  people.  There  was  nothing  to  do 
but  to  stop  it  with  his  hand,  and  so  he  lay  all  the  chilly 
night  and  was  found  nearly  dead  in  the  morning.  The 
gratitude  of  his  people  knew  no  bounds,  for  by  his  night 
of  agony,  he  had  saved  their  houses,  perhaps  their  lives. 
He  showed  his  love  for  his  people  by  suffering  to  save 
them.  But  suppose  he  had  spent  a  terrible  night  upon 
the  cold  ground  of  an  unbroken  dike,  and  had  been  found 
by  a  passer-by  in  the  morning. 

*'What  are  you  doing  there,  chilled  almost  to  death 
by  exposure  through  the  night  T' 

**I  am  making  a  display  of  love  for  the  people." 

What  would  the  answer  be  ? 

** Display,  indeed!    Get  up,  and  go  home." 

A  Russian  nobleman,  traveling  with  his  family  and  a 
faithful  servant,  was  overtaken  by  wolves.  Every  power 
was  exerted,  every  resource  exhausted,  to  reach  a  place 
of  safety.  Finally  there  was  but  one  thing  to  do.  One 
of  them  must  be  a  sacrifice  to  save  the  rest.  The  servant 
volunteered,  telling  his  master  that  he  had  hitherto  shown 
bis  love  by  the  service  of  his  life  he  would  show  it  now  by 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    119 

sacrificing  himself  to  save  them.  He  leaped  to  the 
ground.  In  the  place  where  he  was  torn  to  pieces  as  a 
vicarious  sacrifice  that  nobleman  erected  a  monument 
bearing  the  words,  * '  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this, 
that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.*'  He  sacri- 
ficed himself  for  a  purpose,  and  an  object  was  secured. 
But  suppose  he  had  gone  out  into  the  woods  where  there 
was  nothing  at  stake  to  find  the  wolves  to  devour  himt 
The  master  would  have  told  him,  **You  can  show  your 
love  for  me  more  effectuaPy  by  living  and  serving  me 
faithfully  through  the  rest  of  your  life."  Now,  what 
would  have  been  the  influence  of  Christ's  death  if  no 
farther  object  were  secured  than  a  mere  display?  Just 
that  of  the  boy  freezing  himself  without  an  object,  just 
that  of  the  servant  sacrificing  himself  when  nothing  was 
at  stake — nothing.  Christ's  death  exerts  a  moral  influ- 
ence because  an  object  of  infinite  importance  was  secured. 
He  redeemed  humanity  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  They 
must  indeed  have  confidence  in  histrionic  display  who 
believe  that  an  empty,  purposeless  death  on  Christ 's  part 
could  exert  a  moral  influence.  But  to  those  who  believe 
that,  **He  bore  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree," 
there  is  a  drawing  influence  of  incalculable  power.  He 
has  made  the  atonement,  the  true,  the  only  atonement  for 
sin  and  thus  He  is  the  **Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world."  Here  is  the  great  fact  of  objec- 
tive salvation.  Here  the  mystery  is  explained,  how  God 
can  be  just  and  yet  forgive  sins.  Christ  has  suffered  in 
our  stead,  has  borne  the  penalty  for  our  sins,  and  this  is 
the  great  foundation  act  upon  which  subjective  salvation 
is  established. 


CHAPTER  VII 

Subjective  Salvation 

BUT  this  provision  for  setting  aside  the  penalty 
of  broken  law  in  behalf  of  those  who  accept 
the  substitute  is  only  a  part  of  redemption. 
The  other  part  is  expressed  by  the  apostle. 
**He  died  for  all  that  they  which  live  should  not  hence- 
forth live  unto  themselves  but  unto  him  which  died 
for  them  and  rose  again.''  (II.  Cor.  5:15.)  Salva- 
tion is  not  simply  a  saving  from  a  statutory  penalty 
for  sin  It  is  that  and  much  more.  It  is  a  state  of 
heart,  a  new  life,  imparted  by  God  Himself  to  those 
who  will  come  to  Him.  But  how  shall  they  come? 
They  must  be  drawn  to  Him  by  the  power  of  an  in- 
finite love  manifested  by  an  uplifted  Christ  bearing 
our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree.  As  iron  filings 
in  a  heap  of  sand  or  sawdust  respond  to  the  draw- 
ing power  of  the  magnet,  so  there  are  human  natures 
among  the  masses  of  men  which  respond  to  the  drawing 
power  of  this  infinite  love.  As  magnetism  induces  mag- 
netism, so  love  begets  love,  and  this  is  the  new  life;  for 
God  is  love,  and  one  born  of  God  has  God's  nature. 
What  love  ?  The  love  that  is  responsive  to  and  begotten 
by  the  love  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  to  make  atone- 
ment for  our  sins. 

Paul  explains  it.  * '  For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth 
us  because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead ;  and  that  He  died  for  all  that  they  which 
live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto 
Him  which  died  for  them  and  rose  again." 

After  all,  the  great  final  purpose  of  Christ's  death  was 

120 


0§n§9i8,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    121 

to  provide  this  new  motive — this  impelling  power  in  this 
new  life — in  mankind.  '  *  He  died  for  all  that  they  which 
live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto 
Him  which  died  for  them  and  rose  again. ' ' 

Here  is  displayed  the  full  power  of  the  moral  influence 
of  Christ's  death.  Here  is  shown  in  the  fullness  of  its 
scope  * '  the  expulsive  power  of  a  new  affection. ' '  Those 
who  have  been  born  again,  and  thus  have  been  made 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  are  no  longer  selfish,  no 
longer  live  unto  themselves,  **but  unto  Him  which  died 
for  them  and  rose  again. "  It  is  not  strange  that  this  side 
of  redemption  should  fill  the  angle  of  vision  of  some 
minds,  but  it  is  strange  that  they  have  not  seen  that  all 
the  influence  which  would  secure  subjective  salvation  is 
based  upon  objective  redemption.  The  **  moral  influence 
theory"  of  the  atonement  is  correct  so  far  as  it  goes, 
but  is  wrong  in  so  far  as  it  rejects  objective  redemption. 
The  scripture  view  includes  both  the  so  called  orthodox 
view  and  the  ''moral  influence  theory"  and  builds  the 
latter  upon  the  former.  Each  is  incomplete  without  the 
other.  Gratitude  to  (}od  for  what  he  has  done  for  us 
should  be  an  inspiration  to  higher,  nobler  living.  Fur- 
ther than  that,  the  suffering,  the  work  of  the  Christ  for 
man's  objective  redemption  is  a  revelation  of  the  nature 
of  Qod  that  could  not  have  been  made  in  any  other  way. 
God,  in  the  person  of  man,  going  about  doing  good,  bear- 
ing our  sickness,  healing  our  diseases,  and  yet  ' '  despised 
and  rejected  of  men,"  scoffed  at,  spit  upon,  buffeted,  cru 
cified  and  all  for  love  of  the  race  that  murdered  Him! 
What  a  revelation  of  the  nature  of  God!  There  is  in 
one  of  the  great  galleries  of  Europe,  a  picture  of 
*' Angels  adoring  the  dead  Christ."  It  is  said  that  the 
looks  of  admiration,   love,   astonishment,   and  worship 


122    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

pictured  in  their  faces  are  marvellous.  Angels  worship 
Him  not  for  any  personal  benefit  they  have  received,  but 
because  before  them  they  have  the  proof  of  an  excellence 
of  nature,  a  nobility  of  character  such  as  they  had  never 
dreamed  of  in  all  the  ages  they  had  known  and  loved 
Him  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  But  this  suffering 
for  men  was  an  exhibition  of  his  true  nature ;  it  was  the 
index  of  a  character  that  marked  him  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  as  *^the  chief  est  among  ten  thousand '^  and  **the 
one  altogether  lovely.'' 

No  sentient  being,  human  or  angelic,  who  can  appre- 
ciate moral  excellence,  admire  true  heroism,  or  marvel  at 
infinite  self-sacrifice,  can  fail  to  be  drawn  to  such  a  One. 
This  is  the  supreme  culmination  of  spiritual  influence. 
But  yet  however  great  this  drawing  power  may  be,  and 
however  great  the  subject  of  it  is,  it  is  but  the  beginning 
of  subjective  redemption.  It  is  but  the  paidagogos  to 
lead  us  to  Christ  and  he  imparts  to  us  of  that  divine  life 
which  Adam  lost  by  his  transgression.  God  said  to 
Adam,  *'In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt 
surely  die.  (Gen.  2:17.)  But  the  death  referred  to  was 
not  the  separation  of  the  spirit  from  the  flesh.  That  did 
not  take  place  until  nearly  a  thousand  years  afterward. 
But  it  was  the  loss  of  the  divine,  the  God-imaged  life 
which  in  later  years  is  termed  eternal  life.  This  differs 
from  the  natural  life  not  simply  in  duration  but  in 
quality,  in  kind.  It  was  the  life  that  allied  him  to  God 
and  that  was  the  image  of  God.  Adam  lost  it  by  yielding 
to  the  solicitations  of  selfish  gratification.  When  he 
yields  to  the  solicitations  of  divine,  unselfish  love  that 
life  is  restored  to  him  by  the  act  of  God.  *'If  any  man 
be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature.''  (II.  Cor.  5:17.)  **In 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    123 

uncircumcision  but  a  new  creature/'  (Gal.  6 :15.)  the  cre- 
ation of  a  new  life,  the  kind  of  life  that  Adam  lost  by 
transgression.  ''As  many  as  received  him  to  them  gave 
he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  Grod,  even  to  them  that 
believed  on  his  name ;  which  were  bom,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man  but  of 
God.''     (John  1:12,13.) 

This  is  subjective  salvation,  the  change  in  the  man 
himself,  or  rather  the  creation  in  him  of  a  new  kind  of 
life,  and  this  kind  of  life  may  be  as  different  from  the 
unrenewed  man's  immortal  spirit  as  that  spirit  differs 
from  common  animal  life.  No  being  can  beget  a  kind 
of  life  that  itself  does  not  possess.  Vegetable  life  cannot 
beget  animal  life;  common  animal  life  cannot  beget  the 
immortal  spiritual  life  of  man.  It  is  different  in  kind. 
The  common  immortal  spirit  life  of  man  cannot  beget  the 
divine  life,  the  Gk)d-imaged  life  that  is  termed  eternal  life. 
Adam  lost  that  life  himself,  he  could  not  beget  it  in  his 
offspring.  It  must  be  created  anew  in  those  who  would 
possess  it.  This  process  is  that  described  by  the  Christ, 
'*Ye  must  be  born  again."  This  is  being  **born  of  the 
spirit."  It  is  only  thus  that  any  of  Adam's  race  can 
become  *  *  the  sons  and  daughters  of  ithe  Lord  Almighty. ' ' 
This  view  is  logical,  consistent,  reasonable,  scientific,  as 
well  as  scriptural.  All  the  scriptural  declarations  along 
this  line  are  not  only  reasonable  but  seem  to  be  but  ex- 
pressions in  words  of  conditions  that  must  inhere  in  the 
very  ** nature  of  things."  This  new  birth  is  subjective 
salvation,  the  complement  of  objective  redemption.  It 
cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the  Savior's  ^'ye  must 
be  born  again"  is  the  expression  of  an  absolute  moral 
necessity,  the  sine  qua  nan  of  true  spiritual  life. 

Here  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  what  must  be  the  con- 


124    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

dition  of  those  who  by  heredity  have  acquired  only  the 
Adam  life,  or  who,  having  inherited  the  divine  life  from 
Christian  parents,  have  lost  it  by  their  own  voluntary 
transgression  and  refused  to  yield  to  the  drawing  of  the 
uplifted  Christ  1  How  about  those  who  can  look  upon  the 
suffering,  sin-bearing,  grief -laden  Savior  in  Gethsemane 
or  on  Calvary  and  still  reject  himT  **0  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonedst 
them  which  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings  and  ye  would  not.  Behold 
your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate/'  (Mat.  23 :38.)  No 
tongue  nor  pen  can  describe  the  desolations  that  swept 
Jerusalem — a  warning  to  those  who  reject  him  now.  *'Ye 
will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life"  (John  5 : 
40)  is  the  saddest  wail  from  the  bleeding  heart  of  Jesus. 
The  wail  implies  that  men  cannot  have  the  divine  life 
without  coming  to  him  and  that  the  many  will  not  come. 
* '  He  that  despised  Moses '  law  died  without  mercy  under 
two  or  three  witnesses:  of  how  much  sorer  punishment, 
suppose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden 
under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood 
of  the  covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy 
thing,  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the  spirit  of  grace  f 
(Heb.  10:28,29.)  Can  it  be  possible  that  such  persons 
possess  the  new,  the  eternal  life  1  Can  it  be  that  they  are 
subjectively  saved  while  spurning  the  objective  salva- 
tion t  These  questions  need  no  answer,  for  the  answer 
is  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  The  gospel  of  Christ  is 
the  **  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that 
helievethy"  but  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  the  source 
of  the  greater  guilt,  ill  desert,  condemnation  in  those  who 
reject  it. 


Oemsii,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    125 

This  brings  us  to  consider  the  function  of  belief,  or 
the  necessity  for  a  creed.  There  is  a  great  deal  said 
about  and  against  creeds.  Undoubtedly  much  of  this  op- 
position to  creeds  has  arisen  from  an  undue  magnifying 
of  unessential  particulars  into  barriers  of  separation 
between  different  bodies  of  Christians.  But  here  arises 
the  difBculty  of  deciding  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  parties 
what  are  the  essential  and  what  the  unessential  articles 
of  faith.  Articles  that  some  would  consider  trivial  by 
others  are  esteemed  fundamental  and,  after  all,  it  may  be 
better  to  have  some  decided  convictions  even  upon  non- 
essentials than  to  be  without  them  with  reference  to  the 
essential  doctrines.  But  are  there  any  articles  in  the 
creeds  that  are  essential  for  salvation  ?  Are  we  saved  by 
a  creed?  Rationally  and  scripturally,  yes.  A  creed  is 
exactly  what  we  are  saved  by.  **He  that  cometh  to  God 
must  believe  that  he  is''  and  so  on.  No  one  could  come  to 
Qod  who  did  not  believe  that  there  was  a  God.  Neither 
could  one  experience  subjective  salvation  who  did  not 
believe  in  Christ.  Creed  is  from  credo,  *  *  I  believe. ' '  Be- 
lief is  but  another  name  for  faith.  **  Without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  (Jod.''  The  eleventh  chapter  of 
Hebrews  is  but  a  record  of  the  wonders  wrought  by 
faith.  Jesus  the  Christ  is  none  the  less  emphatic.  Every 
hope  of  benefit  from  Him  is  conditioned  upon  belief,  every 
promise  of  salvation  is  limited  to  those  who  believe.  '  *  The 
Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted  up  that  whosoever  helieveth 
on  him  should  not  perish.''  ^  **He  that  helieveth  not  is 
condemned  already  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the 
name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."^     Condemna- 

iJohn  3:14. 
*  John  3 :18. 


126    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

tion  was  upon  all  men  and  could  be  ascaped  only  by 
belief.  ''For  God  so  loved  the  world  .  .  .  .that 
whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish''  and  so 
on.  ^  ''As  many  as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name. ' '  ^  And  this  declaration  is  supplemented  by 
another,  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting 
life :  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life ; 
but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  upon  him.  ^ 

These  are  very  explicit  declarations  made  by  those 
who  ought  to  know.  Further,  they  are  not  the  mere 
ipse  dixit  of  authority  that  could  be  made  different  by 
power.  They  are  not  dependent  upon  the  volitions  or 
actions  even  of  the  Infinite,  for  they  are  conditioned  upon 
the  limitations  of  the  Infinite.  If  the  preceding  reason- 
ing has  been  correct,  the  above  declarations  are  but  the 
expression  in  words  of  principles  that  inhere  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  immutable  and  eternal.  And  how  many 
times  the  same  truths  are  expressed,  varied  in  every  con- 
ceivable form  of  expression  so  that  there  can  be  no  pos- 
sibility of  missing  the  truth  and  that ' '  the  wayfaring  men 
though  fools  need  not  err''  as  to  the  way  of  salvation. 
The  gospel  of  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation 
to  those  that  believe.  What  was  the  answer  of  Paul  and 
Silas  to  the  jailer  at  Philippi?  ** Believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  * 

But  the  further  citation  of  passages  emphasizing  this 
truth  would  be  tedious.     The  dark  ages  were  but  the 

1  John  3:16. 

2  John  1 :12. 

3  John  3 :36. 
*Acts,  16:31. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    127 

shadow  cast  in  the  eclipse  of  the  truth,  salvation  is  by 
faith  alone,  A  darker  night  will  settle  upon  the  earth  if 
for  any  reason  that  truth  should  be  again  eclipsed.  But 
how  about  works  ?  Christ  says,  * '  This  is  the  work  of  Qod 
that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent,"^  and  he 
said  it  in  answer  to  the  question,  **What  shall  we  do  that 
we  may  work  the  works  of  Qodt"  The  work  of  believ- 
ing is  the  one  supreme  work  that  is  essential  to  salvation 
and  all  other  works  must  be  the  outcome — the  result  of 
a  saving  faith.  The  necessary  works  that  James  speaks 
of  must  be  the  fruits  of  the  faith  that  Christ  declares 
essential  and  that  Paul  emphasizes.  It  would  seem  then 
that  there  are  some  things  to  be  believed  and,  formulated, 
they  would  constitute  a  creed.  Furthermore,  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  elect  what  we  shall  believe  concerning 
him,  and  to  reject  anything  that  may  not  tally  with  our 
opinions.  Jesus  says  to  the  Pharisees,  **I  go  my  way, 
and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your  sins :  whither 
I  go,  ye  cannot  come.*'  He  says  also,  '*Ye  are  from 
beneath,  I  am  from  above:  ye  are  of  this  world;  I  am 
not  of  this  world ;  I  said  therefore  unto  you  that  ye  shall 
die  in  your  sins:  for  if  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye 
shall  die  in  your  sins.'' '  Jesus  evidently  thought  that  a 
person  must  believe  something  definite,  positive  about 
himself.  What?  That  he  was  the  Messiah,  so  long  ex- 
pected, so  definitely  described  in  prophecy,  and  all  that 
Messiahship  implied.  He  declares  very  explicitly  that 
unless  they  believed  that  He  was  the  Christ,  with  at 
least  an  origin  different  from  their  own,  ''ye  are  from 
beneath  I  am  from  above,  ye  are  of  this  world,  I  am  not 

^  John,  6:29. 
•John  8:23,  24. 


128    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

of  this  world/'  If  you  do  not  believe  this  he  says,  **Ye 
shall  die  in  your  sins ;  whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come. ' ' 

According  to  Christ's  view,  belief  in  His  divinity  was 
essential  to  salvation.  It  may  be  now.  At  least,  it  is 
safer  to  believe  than  to  disbelieve.  Christ's  view  is  that 
the  evidences  of  his  origin,  his  nature  and  his  work  are 
so  convincing  that  unbelief  is  the  evidence  of  a  moral 
culpability  that  would  unfit  them  for  his  own  companion- 
ship and  that  of  his  companions.  They  must,  then,  neces- 
sarily, like  Judas,  go  to  their  own  place.  This  in  addi- 
tion to  paying  the  statutory  penalty  for  the  sin  of  unbe- 
lief. Christ  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  convince 
*'of  sin  because  they  believe  not  on  me."^  Whatever 
men  may  or  may  not  think,  the  sin  of  unbelief  is  the  sin, 
the  great  sin,  the  mother  of  all  sins,  for  all  violations  of 
the  moral  law,  termed  sins,  are  but  the  progeny  of  the 
old  mother-sin  of  unbelief  in  and  on  the  uplifted  Christ. 
Scripture  testimony  is  very  full,  explicit  and  strong  as 
to  the  origin  and  results  of  the  sin  of  unbelief,  or  lack 
of  belief.  ' '  How  can  ye  believe  which  receive  honor  one 
of  another  and  seek  not  the  honor  that  cometh  from  God 
only  r '  ^  There  are  some  things  certainly  that  men 
must  believe  concerning  the  Christ  or  they  cannot  inherit 
eternal  life.  ^*The  fearful  and  unbelieving  and  the 
abominable,  and  murderers"  and  so  on  through  that 
catalogue  in  Rev.  21:8  ''shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake 
which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone:  which  is  the 
second  death."  We  may  not  add  to  nor  take  from  the 
words  of  the  Christ  in  this  regard. 

One  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  a 

1  John  16 :9. 
« John  5:44. 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    129 

creed,  concerning  the  Christ,  his  origin,  his  nature,  his 
office,  his  works  and  work.  How  many  articles  must  the 
creed  contain?  Individual  opinions  differ,  but  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  Christ  and  the  inspired  writers  would  make 
it  longer  than  many  modern  ministers  would  have  it.  The 
creed  of  the  individual  may  be  long  or  short  according  to 
the  intelligence  of  the  person  himself.  One  may  say,  *  *  I 
believe  in  the  universe."  That  is  very  comprehensive. 
But  as  knowledge  increases,  this  general  statement  may 
include  a  practically  infinite  number  of  particulars 
which  when  classified  and  arranged  become  the  creed 
statements  regarding  the  universe.  One  may  say^  *  *  I  be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  That  too  is  comprehen- 
sive, and  comprehends  almost  as  much  as  the  creed  con- 
cerning the  universe  and  like  it  can  be  resolved,  with 
increasing  knowledge,  into,  at  least,  a  great  many  par- 
ticulars which  when  classified  and  arranged  become  a 
creed  statement  concerning  him.  The  works  of  nature 
are  worthy  of  study,  of  classifying  and  arranging.  The 
works  and  words  of  nature's  Author  are  worthy  of  the 
same,  and,  the  more  we  learn  of  them,  the  longer  our 
creed  becomes. 

The  objections  to  the  creed  statements  already  in  ex- 
istence may  arise  from  any  one  or  more  of  several  causes. 
First,  the  creed  statement  may  in  reality  fail  to  embody 
the  scripture  teaching  upon  that  subject;  second,  the 
objector  himself  may  fail  to  comprehend  the  depth  of 
truth  contained  in  the  statements;  third,  an  unwilling- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  objector  to  accept  for  his  theology 
the  God  of  nature  and  the  Bible.  But  the  God  of  nature 
and  the  Bible  is  the  Ood  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  and 
we  may  as  well  keep  Him  in  our  theology  as  thrust 
Him  out  and  in  His  place  substitute  one  of  our  owu  ere* 


130    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

ation.  The  God  of  nature  is  the  God  of  the  storm,  the 
volcano,  the  earthquake,  as  well  as  of  the  gentle  breeze, 
the  warm  sunshine  and  balmy  air.  Every  exhibition  of 
the  destructive  forces  of  nature  is  but  a  revelation  of 
the  nature  of  the  God  with  whom  we  have  to  do.  If  one 
would  escape  the  volcano,  he  must  go  beyond  the  reach 
of  its  destructive  power.  In  general,  men  must  conform 
to  the  laws  of  nature,  for  the  laws  of  nature  will  not  con- 
form to  the  caprice  of  man  nor  stay  their  operation  to 
accommodate  men;  and  this  without  reference  to  the 
opinions  of  men.  And  the  laws  of  nature,  if  not  wholly 
projected  into  the  realm  of  spirit,  are  counterparts  of 
the  laws  that  operate  in  the  spirit  realm.  In  neither  can 
they  be  violated  with  impunity.  When  admonished  to 
flee  from  the  storm,  the  earthquake  or  volcano,  men  must 
find  a  refuge,  or  destruction  overtakes  them.  The  forces 
of  Nature  are  the  forces  of  God,  but  they  do  not  suspend 
their  operation  if  perchance  a  heedless  human  being  gets 
in  their  way.  The  Bible  represents  the  same  God  as 
ruling  in  the  unseen  universe,  and  when  he  says,  *^Flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come,"  they  must  and  may  find  a 
refuge,  for  in  His  infinite  mercy.  He  has  provided  one. 
That  refuge  must  not  be  despised.  ''For  our  God  is  a 
consuming  fire.''  Perhaps  the  most  pernicious  fallacy 
of  modern  theological  thought  is  that,  because  God  is  a 
father,  men  may  violate  his  laws  with  impunity,  that 
because  He  is  love.  He  never  will  punish  sin.  But  it  is 
because  He  is  a  father,  because  He  is  love,  that  He  holds 
men  amenable  to  the  laws  of  His  spiritual  universe.  The 
love  of  the  unincarnate  Father  is  infinite,  for  ''God  so 
loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  son  that 
whosoever  helieveth  on  him  should  not  perish  but  have 
everlasting  life. ' '  Men  are  saved  by  a  ' ' credo. "  ** Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.*' 


CHAPTER  VIII 
An  Answer  to  Criticism — Isaiah 

THUS  far  we  have  considered  and  quoted  the 
scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  testaments  as 
authoritative  for  instruction.  We  have  as- 
sumed that  a  book  of  such  unity  and  in- 
tegrity as  the  Bible,  founded  as  it  is  upon  such  in- 
tellect-transcending revelations  as  Genesis  I,  must  natu- 
rally be  received  as  authoritative  in  its  own  depart- 
ment. This  would  seem  to  be  reasonable  especially 
when  its  statements  are  so  nearly  allied  to  ethical 
axioms,  or  are  the  expressions  in  words  of  truths  in- 
herent in  the  very  nature  of  things.  Until  within  the 
last  few  years  no  apology  would  be  needed  for  so  con- 
sidering and  quoting  them.  But  within  the  last  thirty 
years  or  so,  the  trend  of  thought  has  been  toward  con- 
sidering the  Bible  as  simply  a  man-made  book.  What- 
ever may  be  the  professions  or  honest  convictions  of  the 
critics,  this  conclusion  seems  undeniable,  and  as  a  result 
we  are  having  forced  upon  us  a  man-made  Bible,  an 
egocentric  theology,  a  religion  of  evolution  and  salvation 
by  culture. 

This  drift  of  thought  is  synchronous  with  and  greatly 
promoted  by  a  wrong  use  of  modern  critical  methods. 
It  is  not  that  a  method  of  investigation  by  internal  evi- 
dence is  wrong  in  itself,  but  its  results  may  be  entirely 
out  of  the  way  when  those  who  apply  such  methods, 
*  ^  lean  to  their  own  understanding, ' '  too  much,  or  ignore 
the  fact  that  **Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  th^y  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,*'  or  professing  to  **take 
nothing   for   granted"   they   do   take   for   granted   the 

131 


132    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

soundness  of  their  own  premises  and  the  infallibility  of 
their  own  intellectual  processes. 

To  illustrate  some  of  these  points,  the  opinion  prevails 
that  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  But  the  last 
chapter  records  the  fact  and  manner  of  his  death,  his 
age,  the  mourning  of  Israel,  the  appointment  of  Joshua 
and  an  encomium  upon  Moses.  It  would  seem  to  be  and 
is  a  legitimate  inference  that  Moses  did  not  write  that 
chapter,  but  that  it  was  written  by  some  other  person  and 
at  a  later  date,  but  it  is  not  a  legitimate  inference  that  he 
could  not  have  written  any  of  the  book  or  even  the  whole 
of  it  with  the  exception  of  the  last  chapter.  It  is  very 
common  for  one  to  write  his  autobiography  and  after  his 
death,  for  another  to  conclude  the  narrative  by  append- 
ing an  account  of  the  writer's  death.  In  this  case  whether 
it  is  an  autobiography  or  not  must  be  determined  by 
some  other  circumstances  than  that  the  last  chapter  con- 
tains an  account  of  the  writer's  death,  and  so  of  Deute- 
ronomy. 

Again,  a  literary  examination  of  the  book  of  Job  shows 
it  to  be  a  poem,  and  the  identity  of  style  points  to  a 
single  author.  There  is  nothing  irreverent  in  the  sup- 
position that  an  author  much  more  recent  than  that 
patriarch  wrote  it,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  conclude  from 
this  that  it  is  a  mere  figment  of  the  imagination.  We 
believe  in  the  existence  of  Julius  Caesar  as  an  historical 
personage  although  Shakespeare  wrote  his  poem  more 
than  sixteen  centuries  after  his  time.  Whether  Job  was 
an  historical  personage  or  not  must  be  determined  by 
some  other  circumstance  than  that  probably  the  poem 
concerning  him  was  written  by  another  and  a  later  hand. 
One  of  those  circumstances  is  that  Christ  spoke  of  him 
as  a  veritable  personage.    Again,  why  do  we  believe  that 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    133 

Moses  wrote  at  least  a  portion  of  the  PentateucJi?  Be- 
cause it  contains  internal  evidence  of  that  fact  in  its 
express  declarations.  * '  And  God  said  unto  Moses,  *  write 
this  for  a  memoriar  *'  and  so  on.  (Ex.  17.14.)  '*And 
Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  rose  up  early 
in  the  morning'*  and  so  on.  (Ex.  24:4.)  **And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  ** Write  thou  these  words''  and 
so  on.  (Ex.  34.27.)  **And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out 
according  to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord."  (Num.  33:2.)  Here  is  direct  internal  evidence 
that  Moses  wrote  some  portions  at  least,  and  that  he  was 
inspired  of  God  to  do  so. 

Without  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  the  merits  or 
claims  of  the  higher  critics  with  regard  to  the  com- 
posite authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  great  historian, 
W.  H.  H.  Leckey,  gives  us  a  hint  that  may  well  be  pon- 
dered. **I  may  be  pardoned,"  he  says,  **for  expressing 
my  belief  that  this  kind  of  investigation  is  often  pushed 
with  exaggerated  confidence.  Plausible  conjecture  is  too 
often  taken  for  positive  proof.  Undue  significance  is  at- 
tached to  what  may  be  mere  casual  coincidences  and  a 
minuteness  of  accuracy  is  professed  in  discriminating 
between  the  different  elements  in  a  narrative  which  can- 
not be  attained  by  mere  internal  evidence.  In  all  writ- 
ings, especially  in  an  age  when  criticism  was  unknown, 
there  will  be  repetitions,  contradictions,  inconsistencies 
and  diversities  of  style,  which  do  not  necessarily  indicate 
different  authorship  or  dates. "  Even  Leckey  then  would 
be  slow  to  accept  the  results  of  a  very  conservative  criti- 
cism of  the  Pentateuch.  Much  less  can  we  receive  the 
extravagant  conclusions  of  radicals. 

For  first,  many  of  their  assumptions  are  entirely  with- 
out foundation,  e.  g.,  some  assume  that  a  prophet  of  the 


134    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

Lord  would  never  hesitate  to  do  what  God  commanded, 
hence  the  story  of  Jonah  is  a  myth.  No  man  can  know 
the  future,  hence  any  book  like  the  prophecies  of  Daniel 
must  have  been  written  after  the  events  had  transpired. 
This  is  the  argument  of  Porphyry  against  the  book  of 
Daniel  fifteen  centuries  ago.  It  is  assamed  that  all 
human  progress  has  been  steadily,  uninterruptedly  for- 
ward, without  break  or  setback,  and  hence  the  descrip- 
tions of  a  higher  civilization  in  Jewish  history  must  refer 
to  a  late  date.  It  is  assumed  that  a  prophet  living  and 
penning  his  prophecies  through  sixty  years  of  time  could 
never  have  swerved  a  particle  from  his  original  style  of 
writing,  hence  the  two  Isaiahs.  It  used  to  be  assumed 
that  the  art  of  writing  was  unknown  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  and  hence  he  could  not  have  written  the  books 
commonly  ascribed  to  him,  and  that  so  grand  a  character 
as  his  is  described  as  being  could  not  have  lived  in  that 
age,  and  hence  there  was  never  such  a  man  as  Moses.  It 
is  assumed  that  in  speaking  through  his  prophets,  God 
never  uses  the  prophetic  past  tense,  and  hence  when  he 
says  of  Cyrus,  **I  have  called  thee  by  thy  name,  thou  art 
mine,*'  and  so  on,  those  words  must  have  been  spoken 
during  the  life  of  that  prince  and  certainly  were  not 
written  until  afterward.  The  final  great  assumption  is 
that  there  is  nothing  but  the  purely  human  element 
about  the  writings,  nothing  of  a  divine  or  superhuman 
nature  in  them.  This  last  assumption  vitiates  absolutely 
every  conclusion  based  upon  it. 

These  examples  serve  to  illustrate  some  of  the  assump- 
tions upon  which  some  of  the  critics  base  their  conclu- 
sions. 

To  illustrate  the  fallibility  of  men  in  the  application 
of  these  methods,  take  a  single  example  as  a  type  of  many, 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    138 

the  book  of  Isaiah.  The  first  concession  usually  made  to 
the  critics  as  being  most  reasonable  is  the  double  author- 
ship of  that  book.  As  one  writer  says,  '^The  different 
themes  and  literary  styles,  the  frequent  references  to  the 
Babylonians,  not  as  distant  allies,  as  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  but  as  the  hated  oppressors  of 
the  Jews ;  the  evidence  that  the  prophet 's  readers  are  not 
exiles  far  from  Judah;  the  many  allusions  to  the  con- 
quests of  Cyrus — all  these  leave  little  doubt  that  chap- 
ters forty  to  fifty-five  were  written  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  Babylonian  or  the  first  part  of  the  Persian  period." 
This  view  seems  very  credible  and  many  perfectly  sincere, 
earnest  and  candid  Christian  people  may  accept  the 
premises  and  conclusions.  But  an  equally  candid  ex- 
amination of  internal  evidence  would  show  that  such 
conclusions  are  not  warranted.  With  reference  to  theme 
and  literary  style  take  a  passage  from  the  book  itself 
"The  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for 
them;  and  the  desert  shall  rejoice,  and  blossom  as  the 
rose.  It  shall  blossom  abundantly,  and  rejoice  even  with 
joy  and  singing :  the  glory  of  Lebanon  shall  be  given  unto 
it;  the  excellency  of  Carmel  and  Sharon,  they  shall  see 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  and  the  excellency  of  our  God. 
.  .  .  .  Then  shall  the  lame  man  leap  as  an  hart,  and 
the  tongue  of  the  dumb  shall  sing :  for  in  the  wildemesg 
shall  waters  break  out  and  streams  in  the  desert  .  . 
.  .  And  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way  and  it 
shall  be  called,  the  way  of  holiness,  the  unclean  shall  not 
pass  over  it;  but  it  shall  be  for  those;  the  way-faring 
men  though  fools  shall  not  err  therein.  No  lion  shall  be 
there,  nor  any  ravenous  beast  shall  go  up  thereon,  but 
the  redeemed  shall  walk  there ;  and  the  ransomed  of  the 
Lord  shall  return  and  come  to  Zion  with  songs  and  ever- 


136    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

lasting  joy  upon  their  heads;  they  shall  obtain  joy  and 
gladness,  and  sorrow  and  sighing  shall  flee  away.'* 
Therefore, ' '  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people  saith  your 
God.  Speak  ye  comfortably  to  Jerusalem  and  cry  unto 
her  that  her  warfare  is  accomplished,  that  her  iniquity 
is  pardoned;  for  she  hath  received  of  the  Lord's  hand 
double  for  all  her  sins  ....  Every  valley  shall  be 
exalted  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  made  low; 
and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight  and  the  rough 
places  plain ;  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  revealed 
and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together.'* 

Now,  in  the  above  extract,  where  do  the  theme  and 
style  so  radically  change  that  the  same  man  could  not  have 
written  the  whole  of  it  ?  Or  at  what  point  is  there  such  a 
change  that  it  is  improbable  that  the  same  man  wrote 
the  whole  extract?  Yet  all  that  precedes  the  italicized 
*' therefore ' '  is  from  the  35th  chapter  and  the  balance  is 
from  the  40th  chapter.  Chapter  36,  37,  38  and  39  are 
historical,  Isaiah's  account  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  just  as 
we  should  expect;  for  in  II  Chronicles  32:32,  we  read, 
*'Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah,  and  his  goodness, 
behold,  they  are  written  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah  the  pro- 
phet, the  son  of  Amoz,  and  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  and  Israel. ' ' 

Turning  back  to  **the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and 
Israel,"  we  find  (II  Kings,  chapters  18,  19  and  20)  an 
account  of  Hezekiah,  and  turning  forward  to  **the  vision 
of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz, ' '  we  find  in  chap- 
ters 36,  37,  38  and  39,  an  account  supplementing  both  the 
preceding  accounts  of  Hezekiah 's  life.  Isaiah  was  an 
historian  as  well  as  a  prophet,  and  some  of  his  historical 
writings  are  found  before  we  come  to  the  35th  chapter. 

With  reference  to  Babylon's  being  referred  to  **in  the 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    137 

days  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Aiiioz,"  as  a  friendly  ally,  read 
chapters  thirteen  and  a  part  of  fourteen  where  such  a 
fearful  doom  is  pronounced  upon  it.  **The  burden  of 
Babylon  which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  did  see. ' ' 

With  reference  to  the  assumption  that  the  latter  part 
of  the  book  was  written  after  the  return  from  the  capti- 
vity, see  chapter  49 :22  et  seq.  where  the  promise  is  that 
God  will  bring  his  people  back  from  captivity.  **Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God,  Behold  I  will  lift  up  mine  hand  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  set  up  my  standard  to  the  people :  and  they 
shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters 
shall  be  carried  upon  their  shoulders  ....  Shall 
the  prey  be  taken  from  the  mighty,  or  the  lawful  captive 
delivered?  But  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Even  the  captives 
of  the  mighty  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  prey  of  the 
terrible  shall  be  delivered:  for  I  will  contend  with  him 
that  contendeth  with  thee,  and  I  will  save  thy  children." 

This  certainly  looks  as  if  God's  people  were  still  in 
captivity  and  that  God  in  the  then  future  was  going  to 
deliver  them.  Such  instances  might  be  multiplied  but 
these  will  sers'e  as  examples.  With  reference  to  Cyrus, 
there  has  been  such  a  thing  as  prophecy  in  the  sense  of 
foretelling  future  events  as  well  as  in  the  sense  of  teach- 
ing. That  fact  must  be  considered  later,  but  here  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt  the 
generally  received  opinion  that  the  prophet  wrote  in  the 
prophetic  past  tense  of  future  events,  ^nd  that  Isaiah 
is  the  author  of  these  words  is  the  more  probable  from 
the  fact  that  he  is  the  undisputed  author  of  most  won- 
derful predictions  concerning  Babylon,  detailing  the 
most  minute  circumstances  concerning  that  city,  those 
y^redictions  in  the  first  part  of  the  book  and  those  in  the 


138    Oen$sis<,  Foundation  for  Sdsnce  and  Religi0n 

Jast  part  fit  each  other  as  accurately  as  the  two  pieces  of 
a  paper  that  has  been  torn  apart. 

Besides  this  presumptive  evidence,  we  have  what,  with 
most  men,  is  conclusive  evidence  upon  this  point,  that  of 
the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Isaiah  is 
quoted  twenty-one  times  in  the  New  Testament  with  his 
name  attached  to  the  quotation,  as  Matt.  3 :3,  ''This  is  he 
that  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Esaias''  and  so  on. 
Christ  makes  one  quotation  and  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke  (both  in  his  gospel  and  the  Acts)  quote  from 
Isaiah  and  couple  his  name  (in  the  Greek  form)  with  the 
quotation.  Also  Paul  in  his  epistles.  There  are  twenty- 
one  such  quotations  of  which  ten  are  from  the  first  thirty- 
nine  chapters  and  eleven  from  the  last  twenty-seven  or 
from  the  assumed  pseudo  Isaiah.  But  of  this  it  is  said  of 
course  that  writers  simply  reflect  the  popular  opinion 
which  the  critics  consider  erroneous.  But  with  refer- 
ence to  this,  an  incident  is  suggestive.  Luke,  at  least  does 
not  cater  to  popular  impressions  when  they  are  not  cor- 
rect, as  in  the  same  chapter  in  which  he  speaks  of  Isaiah, 
he  corrects  a  popular  misapprehension.  In  the  beginning 
of  his  genealogy  of  Christ,  he  says  (Luke  3:23),  ''Jesus 
himself  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age  being  as 
was  supposed  the  son  of  Joseph,''  implying  that  the  sup- 
position was  not  correct,  but  that  God  was  his  father 
He  here  corrects  one  misapprehension.  If  the  popular 
idea  about  Isaiah  had  been  wrong,  he  probably  would 
have  corrected  that  also. 

Again,  the  scriptures  from  the  time  of  Isaiah  to  Christ 
were  so  scrupulously  guarded  that  no  one  could  have 
joined  his  own  works  to  those  of  that  prophet  even  if  he 
had  desired  to  sink  his  own  personality  after  writing 
such  a  wonderful  production  as  those  last  twenty-sevtn 


OenesiSf  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    139 

chapters.  These  considerations,  among  others,  make  the 
probability  practically  infinite  that  **  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz^'  was  the  author  of  the  entire  book  that  bears  hit 
name.  If  the  contentions  of  the  critics  fail  in  this  case, 
there  is  little  reason  for  accepting  their  conclusions  in 
other  cases. 

Accepting  such  conclusions  has  a  tendency  to  impair 
our  faith  in  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  IX 

Another  Answer  to  Criticism — Daniel 

THE  assumptions  of  some  of  the  more  radical 
critics  that  certain  books  must  have  been  writ- 
ten after  the  events  mentioned  in  them  had 
transpired  requires  a  few  moments'  attention. 
In  our  scriptures  there  are  prophecies  that  do  not  par- 
take of  the  nature  of  Sybilline  oracles,  prophets  who 
were  not  Delphic  priests  nor  any  kin  to  them.  As 
certainly  as  certain  writings  are  in  existence,  so  cer- 
tainly must  they  have  come  into  existence  before  some 
of  the  things  written  in  them  transpired.  Some  years 
ago  the  papers  contained  notices  of  a  book  written  to 
prove  that  the  entire  Bible  is  a  fiction  proceeding 
from  the  brains  of  some  monks  in  the  middle  ages. 
But  if  the  Bible  did  not  exist  before,  how  does  he  ac- 
count for  the  origin  of  monastic  institutions?  Few 
however  even  of  the  radical  critics  would  go  to  that 
extreme.  However,  starting  with  the  same  premises 
and  reasoning  in  the  same  way,  their  conclusions  are 
not  more  reliable  though  less  ridiculous.  The  fact  is, 
as  declared  by  Peter  (II  Peter  1:21),  ''Prophecy  came 
not  in  old  times  by  the  will  of  man:  but  holy  men  of 
God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 
If  there  is  anything  in  history,  sacred  or  profane,  that 
can  be  relied  upon,  the  statement  is  true.  If  there  is  not, 
then  certainly  the  critics  themselves  have  no  grounds  for 
premise  or  conclusion.  There  are  hundreds  of  prophecies 
that,  evidently,  were  written  from  a  few  days,  perhaps, 
to  hundreds  of  years  before  the  events  transpired,  and 

140 


^ 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    141 

that  have  been  literally,  accurately  fulfilled.  We  take 
a  single  example  to  illustrate  this,  and  we  take  it  from 
Daniel  the  more  readily  because  he  is  one  whose  name 
has  been  taken  from  the  list  of  prophets  by  some  of  the 
critics.  A  young  graduate  from  a  certain  theological 
seminary  exclaimed,  when  reference  was  made  to  a 
prophecy  of  Daniel,  **Why,  Daniel  was  not  a  prophet." 
This  statement  indicates  a  modern  drift  of  thought. 
But  let  us  examine  a  passage  from  the  book  that  bears  his 
name  (Daniel  9:25),  **Know  therefore  and  understand 
that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore 
and  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince 
shall  be  seven  w^eeks  and  three  score  and  two  weeks.** 

Here  is  a  clean-cut,  positive  declaration  as  to  an  event 
to  take  place  in  the  future.  The  time  periods  are  definite. 
Each  week  (Shabua)  refers  to  a  period  of  seven  years, 
and  there  is  no  **day  for  a  year'*  theory  involved  in  this 
consideration.  When  Daniel  refers  to  a  week  of  days, 
he  so  defines  it,  as  in  10 :2,  '  *  In  those  days,  I  Daniel  was 
mourning  three  full  weeks'* — ** weeks  of  days"  (Shabua 
ganim).    The  same  in  the  third  verse. 

It  is  again  to  be  noted  that  the  prediction  is  to  the 
'* Messiah."  Jesus  was  not  the  Anointed  One  until  his 
baptism.  The  preceding  verse  (24th)  also  says  **to 
anoint  the  Most  Holy.  *  *  We  are  to  look  then  for  the  end 
of  the  69  weeks  at  the  baptism  rather  than  the  oirth  of 
Jesus.  From  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  and 
so  on  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  to  be  7 +62 =69  weeks 
X  7=483  years.  Various  starting  points  have  been  sug- 
gested with  various  unsatisfactory  results,  but  there  is 
one  that  answers  every  requirement  and  absolutely  fits 
the  conditions. 

In  Ezra  7 :12-26  we  have  a  decree  that  forms  a  very 


142    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

■triking  landmark;  that  of  Artaxerxes  written  in  the 
old  Aramaic  language  and  designed  to  arrest  at  once  the 
attention  of  the  reader  as  being  something  of  unusual 
consequence.  It  may  be  urged  that  it  was  not  a  **  com- 
mandment to  restore  and  to  rebuild  Jerusalem''  but  that 
is  very  plainly  implied.  The  king  himself  calls  ic  a  **de- 
cree ' '  (verse  13 ) .  He  gives  all  the  exiled  Jews  permission 
to  return  to  Jerusalem  and  to  carry  practically  un- 
limited treasures,  **And  all  the  silver  and  gold  that 
thou  canst  find  in  all  the  province  of  Babylon  with  the 
free  will  offerings  of  the  people''  and  so  on.  (Ezra 
7:16.)  See  also  verse  15.  Further  than  this  he  says 
(verse  21),  **I  Artaxerxes  the  king  do  make  a  dicree  to 
all  the  treasurers  which  are  beyond  the  river  that  what- 
soever Ezra,  the  priest,  the  scribe  of  the  law  of  the  God 
of  heaven,  shall  require  of  you  it  shall  be  done  speedily. ' ' 
For  what  purpose  were  these  vast  treasures  to  be  used  T 
One  was  as  expressed,  to  buy  sacrifices  and  offerings,  but 
the  real  purpose  is  expressed  in  the  eighteenth  verse, 
**And  whatsoever  shall  seem  good  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
brethren  to  do  with  the  rest  of  the  silver  and  of  the  gold 
that  do  after  the  will  of  your  God."  That  contains  the 
gist  of  the  whole  decree.  The  temple  had  been  rebuilt. 
What  should  he  and  his  brethren  wish  to  do  with  such 
vast  treasures  if  not  to  repair  the  city  itself,  as  well  as 
the  temple?  According  to  Dr.  Prideaux  this  is  exactly 
what  Ezra  did  '  *  with  the  rest  of  the  money. ' '  The  work 
also  was  done  in  the  first  7  Shabua  =  49  years  mentioned 
in  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.  But  that  Ezra  considered 
that  he  had  received  a  ** commandment"  similar  to  the 
one  mentioned  in  Daniel  9  is  apparent,  for  in  his  prayer, 
(Ezra  9 :9)  he  speaks  of  the  favor  of  the  kings  of  Persia 
**to  give  us  a  wall  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem." 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    143 

This  decree  was  issued  B.  C.  457.  Subtracting  this 
from  the  483  years  of  Daniers  prophecy,  we  find  Daniel's 
69  weeks  projecting  26  years  into  A.  D.  But  Christ  was 
four  years  old  at  the  beginning  of  A.  D.  and  this  added 
to  26  makes  him  exactly  30  years  old  at  the  expiration  of 
Daniers  prophecy,  taking  the  decree  in  Ezra  7  as  the 
starting  point.  To  sum  up,  Daniel  says  that  from  the 
going  forth  of  a  certain  commandment  to  the  Messiah 
should  be  483  years.  In  Ezra  7  there  is  a  remarkable 
landmark,  calculated  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  most 
casual  reader  of  the  original, — a  decree  given  by  the  king 
of  Persia  containing  (verse  18)  carte  blanche  pel-mission 
for  him  to  do  whatever  they  chose  with  hundreds  of 
thousands  if  not  millions  of  dollars. 

Taking  that  as  a  starting  point  it  is  exactly  483  years 
to  the  Messiah.  After  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  ''cut 
off  but  not  for  himself." 

He  was  **cut  off'*  three  and  one  half  years  later  or  as 
stated  in  verse  27,  '*in  the  midst  of  the  week,"  that  is 
in  the  one  remaining  of  the  70  mentioned  in  verse  24. 

**He  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease," 
having  fulfilled  all  that  which  they  typified. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  sacrifices  and  oblations  did 
not  cease,  but  were  offered  after  that.  It  is  true  that 
the  Jews  who  reject  Christ  continued  to  offer  them, 
but  they  were  not  required  and  the  church  did  not  offer 
them. 

The  minor  details  of  that  prophecy  all  harmonize  with 
the  general  result. 

Of  the  panorama  of  future  events  spread  out  in  vision 
before  the  prophet  we  have  here  nothing  to  do.  We  only 
insist  upon  the  pivotal  fact  that  hundreds  of  years  before 
the  events  transpired  he  uttered  a  prediction  that  waa 


144    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

fulfilled  to  the  letter,  and  in  the  very  year  predicted.  It 
is  enough  here  to  show  that  Daniel  was  a  prophet  as  Jesus 
the  Christ  called  him,  that  he  was  one  of  those  **holy 
men  of  God'*  who  ''spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.'' 

It  does  not  help  matters  any  to  ascribe  a  later  date  to 
the  book  of  Daniel  than  the  traditional  one  for  it  cer- 
tainly was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
or  the  death  of  Christ.  If  we  concede  this  we  may  as 
well  concede  the  traditional  date.  But  with  regard  to  the 
traditional  date  of  the  book  a  very  significant  incident 
is  commonly  overlooked.  When  Rawlinson  in  1854  read 
the  cuneiform  inscription  concerning  Belshazzar,  Daniel 's 
correctness  as  a  historian  was  established. 

But  that  is  only  a  part  of  the  truth.  Why  was  it  that 
Herodotus  on  his  visit  to  Babylon  half  a  century  after  the 
traditional  date  of  Daniel's  book  failed  to  find  any  men- 
tion of  Belshazzar  ?  It  was  probably  because  the  account 
recently  found  buried  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  was  buried 
there  before  his  visit.  His  very  ignorance  of  Belshazzar 
is  evidence  that  the  account  had  been  written  and  lost 
before  his  visit. 

But  not  insisting  upon  this  point  as  essential,  the  book 
was  written  at  least  some  centuries  before  the  events 
prophesied  came  to  pass.  This  is  but  one  instance  of 
hundreds.  ' '  Prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 
man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Fulfilled  prophecy  is  one  of  the  ''infallible  proofs"  of 
the  divine  nature  and  origin  of  the  "scriptures  of  truth" 
— proofs  that  separate  them  by  an  infinite  chasm  from 
the  sacred  books  of  the  ethnic  religions. 


CHAPTER  X 
Dangers  of  Egocentric  Theology 

THE  old  testament  as  a  whole  is  a  solid  struc- 
ture built  upon  Genesis  I,  its  declaration,  **In 
the  beginning  God"  and  the  facts  affirmed  in 
that  first  chapter.  Its  history  is  a  record  of 
God's  dealings  with  his  chosen  people. 

The  new  testament  is  a  solid  structure  based  upon  the 
old  and  upon  the  further  fact  that  **God  was  manifest 
in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached 
unto  the  gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up 
into  glory.''  (I  Tim.  3:16.)  **God  hath  visited  and  re- 
deemed his  people."  (Luke  1:68.)  **The  Word  was 
with  God  and  the  word  was  God."  (John  1:1.)  ''This 
is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life."  (I  John  5:20.)  *'The 
only  wise  (Jod  our  Savior."  (Jude  25.)  **In  him  dwel- 
leth  all  the  fullness  of  the  (Jodhead  bodily. "  (Col.  2 :9.) 
The  new  testament  is  a  record  of  the  salvation  provided 
by  the  incarnate  God.  God  himself  provided  salvation, 
** eternal  redemption."  He  has  not  only  provided  sal- 
vation but  in  the  new  testament  he  has  left,  plainly  writ- 
ten out,  the  directions  as  to  obtaining  that  salvation.  We 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that  those  records  are  cor- 
rect, and  their  teachings  to  be  relied  upon,  and  that  they 
are  to  be  our  guide. 

With  those  who  reject  the  Bible  in  its  entirety  we  have 
nothing  here  to  do.  But  there  are  those  inside  of  the 
nominally  Christian  churches,  leaders  in  those  churches, 
who  profess  themselves  Christians  and  believers  in  God 's 
word,  who  yet  openly  teach  that  there  is  something 
in   each   individual  that  is  the  final   arbiter  of   ques- 

145 


146    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

tions  of  religious  belief.  This  is  an  '* inner  light'*  or 
** Christian  consciousness*'  which  they  consider  to  be 
paramount  to  the  scriptures,  and  whose  teachings  are  to 
be  received  without  reference  to,  and  in  spite  of,  the 
teachings  of  the  srciptures. 

W.  E.  Channing  has  been  styled  **a  prophet  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  regarding  the  future. ' '  His  posi- 
tion was,  '*  whatever  doctrines  seem  to  us  to  be  clearly 
taught  in  the  scriptures  we  receive  without  reserve  or 
exception.*'  But  in  recent  years  leaders  in  churches  not 
Unitarian  go  indefinitely  beyond  that  position  and  say  in 
substance,  **if  you  have  [a  supposed]  consciousness  of  a 
truth,  cling  to  it  in  spite  of  anything  that  the  Bible  may 
or  may  not  say  about  it. ' ' 

One  writer  whom  we  have  in  mind  has  a  **  Christian 
consciousness''  that  there  is  a  probation  after  death,  and 
that  there  will  be  enough  of  such  probations  in  the  future 
life  to  make  it  certain  that  everybody  will  be  saved.  Of 
Luther,  Calvin,  Augustine,  Anselm,  Edwards  and  others, 
he  says,  *  *  This  is  their  common  colossal  defect ;  that  they 
make  but  incidental  use  of  the  consciousness  of  Christ, 
(that  is  the  Christian  consciousness)  in  their  determina- 
tion of  theological  opinion."  But  he  excuses  them  in 
part,  for  exegesis  was  against  it,  the  facts  of  life  and  the 
common  notion  that  the  redemption  scheme  was  confined 
to  this  life  were  against  such  a  belief.  He  goes  on,  ' '  Texts 
might  be  quoted  almost  without  number  against  a  nobler 
theology  [that  is  that  there  is  probation  after  death]  and 
with  the  assumption  that  the  day  of  grace  was  confined 
to  this  world,  and  the  awful  facts  of  human  history  were 
simply  incompatible  with  an  optimistic  creed,"  (of 
future  probation). 

The  ** optimistic  creed"  must  be    sustained    at    all 


Q$n€tis,  Foundation  for  Sci$nc9  and  Religion    147 

hazards,  no  matter  what  becomes  of  **  texts  almost  with- 
out number. '  * 

But  why  does  he  think  that  all  of  these  thinkers  and 
teachers  have  made  such  a  colossal  mistake  as  to  suppose 
that  there  was  no  probation  after  death  or  that  salvation 
was  not  universal?  He  answers,  ** These  thinkers  who 
began  with  an  open  vision  of  the  highest  defer  hardly  at 
all  to  the  creative  Christian  consciousness."  Because 
they  did  not  create  their  religious  systems  out  of  their 
own  *' consciousness"  they  were  all  at  fault. 

And  yet  that  writer  may  be  mistaken  in  supposing 
that  those  men  did  not  defer  to  a  Christian  consciousness, 
for  they  may  have  had  a  consciousness  of  the  truths  re- 
vealed by  the  scriptures. 

The  writer  above  referred  to  has  recorded  several  of 
the  creatures  of  his  so-called  Christian  consciousness  that 
are  not  in  accord  with  either  the  facts  of  nature  or  the 
truths  of  revelation.  We  note  one  or  two  more.  One  is 
the  absolute  universalism  that  his  consciousnesj  evolves 
or  creates.  He  says,  *  *  The  scheme  that  contemplates  the 
salvation  of  only  a  part  of  the  human  race  is  the  ultimate 
blasphemy  of  thought  in  which  our  western  civilization 
has  been  in  part  living  for  fifteen  hundred  years." 
(Query,  how  long  has  our  western  civilization  been  in 
existence!) 

With  reference  to  those  schemes  of  theology  that  con- 
template that  some  will  be  lost  he  says,  **Now  in  the  case 
of  those  who  believe  that  the  Christian  consciousness  is 
the  creative  and  regulative  source  of  all  theology,  these 
partialistic  schemes  must  be  forever  abandoned." 

'*Some  will  be  first  and  some  will  be  last,  one  will  be 
elected  to  lead  and  another  to  follow;  but  all  will  be 
chosen  for  service,  all  for  the  beatific  vision."    He  ad- 


148    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  IteUgion 

mits  that  many  texts  of  scripture  may  be  quoted  against 
this  view,  but,  he  says,  this  fact  **need  trouble  no  one." 

We  may  add  one  more  idea  from  the  same  writer,  that 
with  reference  to  the  nature  of  Christ  and  of  men  in 
general.  He  says,  **  According  to  habits  of  thought  but 
recently  broken  up,  God  had  but  one  son."  But  he 
affirms,  ^^This  opinion  is  no  longer  preachable  or  cre- 
dible among  thinking  men." 

Of  course  all  of  those  passages  of  scripture  that  refer  to 
Christ  as  the  ''only  begotten  son"  must  be  swept  away 
in  the  interest  of  his  own  particular  belief.  '*A11  men 
are  sons  of  God,"  and  he  uses  the  term  ' ' consubstantiated 
with  God."  He  indeed  admits  that  Paul,  James,  John 
and  other  scripture  writers  had  this  ''consciousness"  but 
the  teachings  of  their  * '  consciousness ' '  must  be  corrected 
by  his  own  "consciousness,"  or  by  that  of  any  one  else 
who  might  differ  from  them. 

We  have  considered  a  few  propositions  from  a  single 
writer  to  illustrate  a  strong  trend  of  thought  at  the 
present  time.  A  leading  Unitarian  expressly  declared 
that  the  Bible  was  an  orthodox  book,  and  one  could  get 
nothing  but  orthodoxy  out  of  it  if  it  were  taken  as  it 
reads,  but  his  idea  was  that  all  of  its  contents  must  be 
arraigned  at  the  bar  of  that  so-called  consciousness,  and 
must  stand  or  fall  by  that  as  judge. 

And  such  ideas  are  not  confined  to  that  denomina- 
tion. It  is  the  trend  of  thought,  the  drift  of  opinion  of  a 
large  number  of  the  leading  teachers  and  preachers  in 
the  so-called  orthodox  churches.  One  of  the  secrets  of 
its  power  is  its  covert  flattery  of  men.  It  appeals  to  the 
complacency  of  men  in  their  own  wisdom  and  goodness. 
It  virtually  says  to  such,  ' '  You  are  learned,  you  are  wise 
you  are  good,  you  need  not  bow  to  any  outside  authority 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    149 

for  instruction.  You  are  yourself  able  to  decide  what 
is  true  and  what  is  not.    Stand  by  your  beliefs." 

This  position  is  greatly  aided  by  the  higher  criticism 
by  which  almost  any  obnoxious  teachings  of  the  scrip- 
tures may  be  disregarded.  Even  where  this  is  not  wholly 
the  case  it  occasions  a  general  relaxation  of  the  strong 
grip  the  Bible  teachings  formerly  held  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men. 

But  the  bottom  fact  in  the  whole  matter  of  this  so- 
called  consciousness  is  that  it  may  not  be  consciousness 
at  all  but  merely  a  belief  so  strong  as  not  to  be  dis- 
tinguishable from  consciousness.  And  yet  that  belief 
may  not  be  correct.  One  cannot  have  a  consciousness 
that  there  is  a  planet  as  large  as  Jupiter  revolving  around 
the  sun  in  an  orbit  between  the  orbits  of  Earth  and  Mars. 
It  is  not  a  fact.  One  cannot  have  a  consciousness  that  the 
sun,  moon  and  stars  revolve  around  the  earth  as  the 
center  of  the  solar  system.  It  is  not  a  fact,  though  for 
ages  men  had  a  conviction  so  strong  that  it  could  not  be 
separated  from  consciousness  that  it  was  the  case. 

The  Moslem  world  holds  its  religious  convictions  with 
an  absoluteness  that  cannot  be  distinguished  from  con- 
sciousness and  yet  those  convictions  may  not  be  correct. 
Any  number  of  instances  might  be  given  where  beliefs 
have  been  held  so  strongly  as  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  consciousness  and  yet  have  been  proven  to  be  false. 

The  whole  force  of  this  teaching  about  a  Christian 
consciousness  is  directed  to  the  establishing  of  an  egocen- 
tric theology.  The  individual  himself  is  considered  to  be 
the  only  infallible  element  in  his  beliefs.  It  is  not  an 
infallible  church,  an  infallible  pope,  nor  an  infallible 
Bible,  but  an  infallible  ego  that  is  to  be  the  final  arbiter 
of  truth  in  matters  pertaining  to  religion.    The  infallible 


150    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

ego  is  the  center  of  belief,  the  creator  of  its  own  theolo- 
gical system.  But  there  are  as  many  objective  facts  in 
theology  as  in  astronomy. 

These  facts  cannot  be  removed  by  the  wish  of  raan  nor 
by  the  opinions  of  men.  It  is  dangerous  to  assume  that 
they  can  be.  They  are  false  teachers  who  teach  that  they 
can  be.  They  are  unsafe  leaders  who  lead  men  to  think 
that  each  man  is  a  law  unto  himself.  But  there  is  some- 
thing outside  of  one's  self  that  assumes  to  be  a  guide. 
It  is  a  book  that  opens  with  a  wonderful  vision  of  how 
the  worlds  were  formed.  That  narrative  as  the  record 
of  actual  facts  has  been  confirmed  by  all  of  the  advances 
in  astronomy  for  the  last  one  hundred  years,  and  the 
discoveries  of  the  last  few  years  have  as  nearly  proven 
the  account  to  be  correct  as  any  thing  not  the  subject  of 
mathematical  demonstration  can  be  proven.  But  a 
mathematical  calculation  of  probabilities  as  to  the  truth 
of  both  would  bring  those  probabilities  so  near  infinity 
as  to  be  undistinguishable,  practically,  from  it.  To- 
gether, they  form  a  wonderful  voucher  for  the  book  that 
is  founded  upon  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  records 
of  geology  absolutely  confirm  the  records  in  those  chap- 
ters. The  discoveries  of  archaeology,  since  that  science 
was  born,  confirm  the  accuracy  of  the  book  in  general. 

In  hundreds  of  instances  some  casual  utterance  is 
found  to  be  the  declaration  of  an  eternal  principle  in 
nature  that  could  hardly  have  been  discovered  by  cen- 
turies of  unaided  human  study.  These  are  wonderful 
vouchers  for  the  truthfulness  of  the  book. 

Further,  besides  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  hundreds 
of  prophecies,  uttered  from  a  few  days  to  hundreds  of 
years  before  their  fulfillment  confirm  the  divine  origin  of 
the  book.    It  is  a  revelation  of  human  nature  and  we  can 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    151 

hardly  know  ourselves  without  consulting  its  pages. 
These  circumstances  should  prove  the  book.  Ine  mer- 
chant does  not  have  to  prove  every  individual  item 
charged  in  his  accounts.  He  may  prove  a  reasonable 
number,  and  all  items  must  be  admitted  unless  there  is 
plain  proof  to  the  contrary  in  each  case.  The  conten- 
tion here  is  that  these  circumstances  connected  vvith  the 
Bible  should  prove  the  books  so  that  a  candid  man  may 
rely  upon  their  teachings  even  though  he  may  not  be 
able  to  comprehend  them.  Any  other  course  is  like  sub- 
jecting the  magnetic  needle  to  his  own  feelings.  One 
may  have  a  compass  that  in  hundreds  of  instances  has 
been  correct.  Its  needle  points  to  the  magnetic  pole. 
But  if  the  owner  were  lost  in  a  forest  he  might  feel  that 
the  compass  was  not  correct.  Some  disturbing  influence 
must  be  at  work,  he  might  think.  The  needle  says  that 
one  direction  is  north  but  he  is  conscious  that  another 
direction  is  north.  But  if  he  goes  by  that  **  conscious- 
ness" or  acts  in  accordance  with  some  ** inner  light,*'  he 
may  find  to  his  sorrow  that  the  compass  was  right  and 
that  he  was  wrong. 

This  illustrates  our  relations  with  the  Bible.  We  may 
feel  that  in  some  instances  it  must  be  wrong.  S':ill  it  is 
not  safe  to  assume  that  it  is.  It  should  be  taken  as  it 
reads,  simply  remembering,  that,  like  other  literature,  it 
is  adapted  to  the  wants,  the  needs  of  men.  It  deals  in 
poetry,  parables,  figures  of  speech  and  so  on.  But  these 
are  easily  enough,  as  a  general  thing,  distinguished  by  the 
candid  mind.  They  but  adapt  it  the  more  perfectly  to 
free  moral  agents,  throwing  them  back  upon  their  own 
candor  and  sincerity,  demanding  a  right  attitude  of  will, 
requiring  an  earnest  desire  to  find  the  truth  that  they 
may  live  by  it.    That  is  why  the  Author  of  the  Bible  ha0 


152    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

allowed  difficulties  to  appear.  They  are  valuable  for  de- 
veloping virtuous  character  in  moral  agents. 

But  the  parables  are  readily  seen  to  be  parables,  figures 
of  speech  are  seen  to  be  such,  and  their  meaning  is 
generally  apparent;  though  sometimes  that  which  seems 
to  be  an  extravagant  figure  of  speech  may,  after  all,  but 
express  a  truth  too  recondite  for  us  to  readily  under- 
stand. 

As  an  example  take  the  Savior's  words  to  those  who 
have  followed  him  **in  the  regeneration,"  ** Every  one 
that  hath  forsaken  houses  or  brethren  or  sisters  or  father 
or  mother  or  wife  or  children  or  lands  for  my  name's 
sake  shall  receive  an  hundred  fold  and  shall  inherit  ever- 
lasting life."  (Mat.  19:29.)  Consider  first  relation- 
ships.  He  elsewhere  says,  **  Whosoever  shall  do  the  will 
of  my  father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother 
and  sister  and  mother."  (Mat.  12:50.)  In  this  regard 
he  is  speaking  to  those  who  have  ''followed  him  in  the 
regeneration,"  who  have  been  ''born  of  the  spirit."  He 
is  speaking  to  those,  "as  many  as  received  him  to  them 
gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  those 
that  believe  on  his  name ;  which  were  born  not  of  blood 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh  nor  of  the  will  of  man  but  of 
God."  He  says  to  his  disciples,  "All  ye  are  brethren." 
They  were,  in  the  true  sense  of  being  the  children  of  one 
father,  God.  It  is  no  perversion,  either,  to  call  the  elder- 
ly women,  who  have  been  born  again,  mothers  in  the 
church. 

We  magnify  fleshly  relationships;  Christ  magnifies 
spiritual  relationships.  With  regard  to  possessions,  the 
true  Christian  can  possess  "all  things"  even  though  he 
cannot  and  does  not  wish  to  exclude  every  one  else  from 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    153 

their  possession.  This  is  '*my  country"  though  I  cannot 
push  every  one  else  out  of  it. 

Whether  or  not  I  have  been  happy  in  choosing  an 
illustrative  example,  it  is  true  that  seeming  figures  of 
speech  may  correctly  express  truth  too  recondite  for  us 
to  perceive,  or  which  men  would  not  readily  accept  if 
they  did  perceive  them. 

There  is  poetry,  too,  in  the  Bible  that  indicates  that 
poetic  license  has  been  taken,  but  not  to  an  extent  to  be 
misleading. 

But  there  is  enough  plain,  straightforward  teaching 
that  cannot  honestly  be  evaded.  When  the  book  says 
that  it  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked  it  is  not  safe  to 
assume  that  it  will  be  well  with  the  wicked.  There  is 
an  amiable  complacency  abroad  that  fails  to  take  into 
account  the  heinousness  of  sin  against  Qod,  But  God 
will  judge  men  according  to  his  own  view  of  sin,  and  it 
may  not  be  the  amiable  one  that  some  men  take.  When 
the  book  says,  **  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment,"  (Mat.  25:46.)  it  is  not  safe  to  assume 
that  all  shall  go  into  life  eternal.  It  may  have  been 
Jesus  who  spoke  those  fearful  words,  and  they  may  be 
true.  When  the  scriptures  in  numberless  instances  speak 
of  the  Devil  as  if  he  were  a  veritable  personage,  it  is  not 
safe  to  teach  that  there  is  no  such  being.  It  may  be  that 
there  is,  and  that  he  has  gained  a  great  point  in  con- 
vincing religious  teachers  that  there  is  not.  When  the 
King  is  represented  as  saying  to  some,  **  Depart  from  me 
ye  cursed  into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels,"  (Mat.  25:41.)  it  is  not  safe  to  assume 
that  those  words  were  never  spoken  or  if  spoken,  were 
not  true.  They  may  have  been  spoken,  they  may  be  true 
and  have  a  fearful  significance. 


154    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Sciina  and  Rsligion 

When  Christ  is  represented  as  saying  to  certain  reli- 
gious teachers,  ''Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the 
lusts  of  your  father  ye  will  do, ''  (John  8 :44)  it  is  not  safe 
to  teach  that  every  man  is  a  son  of  God  and  that  all  they 
need  is  to  become  conscious  of  the  fact. 

When  a  man  ceases  to  be  a  child  of  the  devil  and  really 
becomes  a  son  of  God  he  may  become  conscious  of  the 
fact,  for,  * '  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the 
witness  in  himself,  (I  John  5 :10.)  '*For  as  many  as  are 
led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  they  are  the  sons  of  God,''  (Rom. 
8:14)  and  ''The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.''  (Rom.  8:16.) 
But  this  witness  is  given  only  to  those  who  believe  on  the 
Son  and  by  believing  on  him  have  received  the  "power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God. ' '  When  one  becomes  a  child 
of  God  he  may  become  conscious  of  the  fact  and  not  be- 
fore. 

It  is  urged,  however,  that  all  such  passages  must  be 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  parable  of  the  prodigal 
son.  That  parable  has  been  very  much  overworked  in 
the  interest  of  universal  salvation.  It,  indeed,  indicates 
the  attitude  of  the  Father  toward  a  returning  son.  But 
it  indicates  not  only  the  attitude  of  the  father  but  also 
that  of  the  son.  This  is  overlooked  by  universalists.  The 
attitude  of  the  son  is,  "I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father 
and  will  say  unto  him,  Father,  I  have  sinned  against 
heaven  and  before  thee,  and  am  no  more  worthy  to  be 
called  thy  son:  make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants." 
(Luke  15:18,19.)  There  are  some  who  evidently  do  not 
take  that  attitude.  Christ  says,  "No  man  cometh  to  the 
Father  but  by  me."  (John  14:6.)  One  of  his  saddest 
wails  is,  "Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have 
life."    (John  5:40.)     God  will  not  say  one  thing  by  his 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    155 

Son  and  the  inspired  apostles,  and  a  contradictory  thing 
to  the  consciousness — so-called— of  any  man  of  to-day. 

Of  the  same  nature  is  the  idea  of  an  ** inner  light." 
It  may  be  right,  it  may  not  be.  If  it  reveals  ourselves  to 
ourselves  in  the  same  way  that  the  Bible  does  we  may  be 
sure  that  it  is  correct.  One  thing  that  the  experience  of 
the  centuries  has  confirmed  is  the  statement,  ' '  Thy  word 
IS  a  lamp  unto  my  feet  and  a  light  unto  my  path.'*  (Ps. 
119:105.)  But  we  have  a  strong  hint  that  one  may  im- 
agine that  he  has  an  ** inner  light*'  that  is  not  light,  for 
Jesus  says,  ' '  If  the  light  that  is  in  you  be  darkness  how 
great  is  that  darkness. ' '    (Mat.  6 :23. ) 

Some  of  the  most  monstrous  departures  from  the 
Christian  faith  and  practice  have  been  occasioned  by  a 
supposed  *  *  inner  light. ' '  The  reason  for  this  the  apostle 
Paul  makes  clear,  **And  no  marvel;  for  Satan  himself 
is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light."    (II  Cor.  11 :14.) 

It  is  not  safe  for  a  captain  to  remain  in  his  cabin  and 
steer  his  vessel  by  the  light  in  that  little  room  and  dis- 
regard the  lights  that  are  in  the  heavens. 

The  Bible  professes  to  reveal  a  knowledge  of  things 
which  the  unaided  human  intellect  could  never  ascertain, 
such  as  a  knowledge  of  God,  of  his  nature,  a  future  life, 
and  the  way  of  salvation.  In  thousands  of  instances 
where  men  have  found  out  truths  they  have  confirmed  the 
teachings  of  the  scriptures.  Men  are  appealed  to  as 
authorities  upon  subjects  which  they  are  supposed  to 
understand.  The  Bible  should  be  respected  as  an  author- 
ity upon  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats.  At  least  it  is 
safer  than  human  imaginings.  In  matters  pertaining  to 
God  and  his  relations  to  men  the  Bible  is  an  authority 
for  instruction.  In  its  presence  an  egocentric  theology 
cannot  stand. 


CHAPTER  XI 
The  Bible  As  An  Authority  to  Be  Obeyed 

IN  numberless  instances  the  commands  and  precepts 
of  the  Bible  are  found  to  be  but  a  revelation  to 
men  of  eternal  principles  that  inhere  in  the  very 
nature  of  things,  to  which  men  must  conform  their 
lives  in  order  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  universe  or  to  get 
any  good  out  of  it.  They  are  given  in  the  same  spirit 
with  which  a  parent  would  command  a  child  not  to  eat 
poisonous  berries,  the  nature  of  which  the  child  could 
not  understand.  Men  are  not  so  wise  as  many  of  them 
think  that  they  are.  They  need  guidance  more  than 
many  of  them  think  that  they  do.  They  cannot  rely  as 
safely  upon  their  own  judgment  as  many  of  them  think 
that  they  can.  There  are  principles  in  the  universe 
which  the  Maker  of  the  worlds  and  the  Maker  of  men 
knows  better  than  men  have  as  yet  been  able  to  know 
them.  The  path  of  obedience  is  the  only  path  of  safety. 
The  first  sin  on  earth  was  unbelief,  the  second  was  dis- 
obedience. Men  must  learn  that  there  is  a  wisdom  supe- 
rior to  their  own,  that  there  is  a  power  superior  to  them- 
selves, that  there  are  laws  which  they  must  obey.  *^Hath 
the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices, as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  LordT'  (I  Samuel 
15:22.)  With  reference  to  those  occult  principles  of 
nature  which  some  commandments  require  us  to  observe, 
we  may  mention  one  or  two  as  examples  which  do  not 
seem  at  least  to  be  very  well  understood.  One  of  these 
is  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.  ' '  Remember  the  Sabbath  day 
to  keep  it  holy."  Is  that  the  expression  of  a  principle 
of  nature  that  for  our  own  wellbeing  must  be  observed  ? 

156 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    157 

All  the  other  commandments  in  the  decalogue  are  clearly 
seen  to  be.  Is  this  a  solitary  exception?  It  is  in  good 
company.  They  all  come  from  the  same  source.  He  that 
said,  '*Thou  shalt  not  kill/'  said  also,  *' Remember  the 
Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy.*'  There  is  evidence  that  it 
was  made  for  men  and  when  man  was  made.  At  least 
there  is  evidence  that  it  was  observed  centuries  before 
the  time  of  Moses.  It  is  said  that  a  Chaldean  account 
of  creation  has  been  discovered  which  confirms  the  state- 
ment that  the  Sabbath  is  coeval  with  creation.  Other 
tablets  have  been  found  that  give  an  account  of  the  Sab- 
bath which  were  written  in  a  language  that  became  ex- 
tinct two  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  Moses.  It 
seems  as  if  there  must  be  some  reason  for  it  that  the 
superficial  obsei'ver  does  not  see.  Gtod  expressed  His 
estimate  of  the  day  by  commanding  a  man  to  be  put  to 
death  who  had  willfully  violated  it.  All  admit  that  it  is 
of  use  as  a  day  of  rest  for  the  body,  but  even  in  this 
respect  the  value  of  a  conscience-bound  day  of  rest  is  not 
fully  appreciated.  One  can  rest  when  his  conscience  for- 
bids him  to  work  as  he  could  not  were  the  time  not  so 
bound. 

Utilitarian  arguments  along  this  line  are  urged  for  its 
observance.  They  are  good  as  far  as  they  go  and  per- 
haps they  are  the  only  ones  that  can  be  used  to  secure 
legislation  for  Sabbath  observance,  but  there  aru  other 
considerations  for  those  who  wish  to  develop  their 
spiritual  natures,  and  after  all  these  are  of  supreme  im- 
portance. Even  steel  tools  require  an  occasional  season 
of  rest.  But  if  our  bodies  were  so  made  as  never  to  need 
a  moment's  rest,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  would  still  be 
as  necessary  for  our  spiritual  natures  as  it  is  now.  Seen 
from  one  stand  point,  it  would  seem  to  be  even  more 


158    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

necessary.  A  clock  with  the  most  perfect  machinery, 
the  most  perfectly  oiled,  and  with  heavier  weights  would 
the  more  need  a  pendulum  to  keep  it  from  running  too 
fast.  So  the  Sabbath  has  its  moral  use  in  stemming  for 
a  time  the  onrushing  spirit  of  worldliness  that  is  finally 
so  destructive  of  happiness. 

We  need  a  day  when  free  from  the  work  and  worry 
of  life  we  can  hold  communion  with  the  Father  of  our 
spirits.  Even  if  our  bodies  never  needed  rest,  our 
spiritual  natures  would  need  stated  seasons  of  refresh- 
ing. 

Men  need  the  law  also  as  a  test  of  faith  and  obedience. 
As  before  noted,  the  first  sin  was  unbelief,  the  second  dis- 
obedience. The  same  test  is  still  proposed  to  all;  **Will 
you  believe  God's  word  and  obey,  or  will  you  disbelieve 
and  disobey  r'  It  is  a  test  of  loyalty  to  One  who  is 
infinitely  our  superior.  It  is  also  a  test  of  fealty.  Will 
you  be  true  to  your  sovereign  Lord? 

But  perhaps  one  of  its  most  important  uses  is  that  it 
places  a  check  on  the  spirit  of  avarice  that  so  often 
makes  riches  a  curse.  The  law  of  tithes  acts  in  the  same 
way,  and  one  does  not  have  to  look  very  far  into  the 
nature  of  things  to  see  the  divine  wisdom  in  that  law. 
It  is  not  that  riches  are  a  curse  to  their  possessors  or  to 
others  when  held  with  a  right  spirit.  When  God  made 
the  animal  frame  he  planned  that  some  organs,  as  heart, 
lungs,  kidneys  and  other  organs,  should  receive  inde- 
finitely more  blood  than  many  other  organs,  and  that 
too  was  for  the  good  of  the  whole  system.  In  organized 
society  it  may  be  as  essential  that  some  persons  have 
vastly  more  of  the  circulating  medium  than  others  in 
order  to  carry  on  those  vast  enterprises  that  are  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  whole  people.    And  it  does  not  follow 


Genesis,  Foundation  for^  Science  and  Religion    159 

that  the  ones  who  have  the  most  wealth  are  the  most 
avaricious  or  greedy.  Abraham  was  not  more  avaricious 
than  Lot  though  he  had  greater  possessions.  Elisha  was 
not  more  avaricious  than  his  slave  Gehazi. 

Many  men  have  been  given  great  abilities  to  acquire 
and  to  invest  wealth  in  railroads,  telegraphs,  pipe  lines, 
ocean  cables,  manufacturing  establishments,  and  so  on, 
that  are  an  inestimable  blessing  to  society  in  general. 
But  whether  this  wealth  is  a  blessing  to  its  possessors  or 
not  depends  upon  the  spirit  of  loyalty  to  Him  who  gave 
them  the  power  to  get  wealth  and  whose  stewards  they 
are. 

Misquotations  of  scripture  are  common,  such  as 
** Money  is  the  root  of  all  evil."  Money  is  the  circulat- 
ing medium,  the  blood  of  society  without  which  or- 
ganized society  could  not  exist  upon  any  extended  scale. 
**The  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evil.**  That  is 
another  misquotation.  The  love  of  money  is  a  divinely 
implanted  instinct  to  serve  as  a  stimulus  to  that  exertion 
that  is  necessary  for  man's  well  being.  It  is  only  when 
one  is  driven  by  it  to  transgress  the  supreme  law  of 
benevolence,  to  violate  the  fundamental  law  of  love  to 
God  and  our  neighbor  that  it  becomes  a  curse.  Then  it 
becomes  that  **covetousness  which  is  idolatry."  That  is 
the  teaching  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  **  Which  while  coveted 
after,  they  have  erred  from  the  faith,  and  pierced  them- 
selves through  with  many  sorrows."     (I  Tim.  6:10.) 

It  is  only  when  the  instinct  causes  one  to  transgress  the 
** First  and  great  commandment"  and  the  other  that 
**is  like  unto  it"  that  it  becomes  an  evil.  Now  if  in  the 
acquiring  of  wealth  one  would  faithfully  observe  the  law 
of  the  Sabbath  as  an  expression  of  love  and  fealty  to  God, 
give  a  reasonable  proportion  of  his  income  as  an  ex- 


160    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

pression  of  his  love  for  God  and  his  fellow-man,  it  if 
as  plain  as  an  axiom  that  riches  would  never  be  a  curse 
to  their  owner. 

That,  then,  which  seems  to  the  superficial  thinker  to  be 
a  mere  arbitrary  dictum  of  a  superior  power  becomes  the 
divine  prescription  for  happiness  with  wealth.  There 
may  be  many  other  instances  of  the  same  nature. 

But  without  waiting  to  question  the  nature  of  a  com- 
mand or  precept,  men  should  obey.  No  man  is  fit  to 
command  who  has  not  first  learned  to  obey.  The  first 
principle  of  obedience  is  obedience  to  God.  The  Bible 
is  His  word.  It  is  an  authority  to  be  obeyed.  It  is  the 
voice  of  superior  wisdom,  of  superior  authority.  Even 
Christ  will  be  obeyed.  **If  ye  love  me  keep  my  com- 
mandments,'' is  his  declaration. 


CHAPTER  XII 

The  Reasonableness  of  the  Christian's  Faith 

THIS  receiving  the  scriptures  as  an  authority 
to  be  obeyed  involves  faith  in  them.  Is  this  a 
reasonable  attitude  1 1s  faith  in  general  reason- 
ible  1 1s  the  Christian  faith  as  a  system  reason- 
able? A  mistaken  notion  prevails  that  would  answer 
these  questions  in  the  negative.  **  Faith  and  reason  are 
contradictory  terms,"  once  declared  a  very  intelligent 
man  to  the  writer.  But  if  that  be  true,  there  is  no  reason 
used  in  society  today,  for  all  of  our  activities  are  based 
upon  faith.  Civilized  society  is  built  upon  faith.  If  that 
foundation  should  give  way  not  only  would  organized 
society  disappear  but  death  and  destruction  would  hold 
carnival.  No  banking  house  could  survive  a  failure  of 
faith  in  it.  Pew  commercial  houses  could  survive  even  a 
limited  failure  of  public  confidence  in  them.  If  all 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  people  should  fail,  governments 
even  could  not  exist.  Are  people,  then,  all  of  the  time 
violating  the  dictates  of  reason!  No.  When  conditions 
warrant  faith  it  is  not  reasonable  to  withold  it.  It  is 
reasonable  for  a  man  to  have  faith  in  a  wife  who  has 
through  long  years  been  true  to  him.  A  lack  of  faith 
would  indicate  a  culpable  spirit  of  jealousy.  It  is 
reasonable  to  trust  friends  who  have  always  been  true  to 
us.  Even  when  there  is  so  much  crime  committed  as 
there  is  at  present,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  entertain  a 
pessimistic  lack  of  faith  in  men.  These  propositions  need 
only  to  be  stated  to  be  received.  If  confidence  in  men  is 
reasonable,  confidence  in  God  is  equally  so. 

Said  the  aged  martyr  Polycarp,  '  *  Eighty  and  six  years 

161 


162    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

have  I  served  him  and  he  has  never  done  me  any  harm.'* 
With  equal  truth  he  could  have  said,  ''He  has  never  de- 
ceived me."  Millions  of  men  and  women  in  all  ages 
have  found  that  ' '  The  steps  of  faith  fall  on  the  seeming 
void  but  find  the  rock  beneath.''  The  Christian's  faith 
is  not  a  blind,  unreasoning  credulity,  at  least  it  need  not 
be.  At  the  outset  the  required  faith  need  only  be  a 
right  attitude  of  the  will  with  reference  to  the  truth  or 
to  what  may  be  truth.  This  attitude  is  what  the  apostle 
refers  to  in  Hebrews  11:6.  ''Without  faith  it  is  impos- 
sible to  please  him:  for  he  that  cometh  to  God  must 
believe  that  he  is  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that 
diligently  seek  him. ' '  Human  experience  has  shown  that 
the  required  faith  need  not  be  very  strong — only  just 
enough  to  apply  the  required  test,  and  a  faint  faith  may 
be  changed  to  positive  knowledge  for  it  is  written,  ' '  And 
ye  shall  seek  me  and  find  me  when  ye  shall  search  for  me 
with  all  your  heart. ' '     ( Jer.  29 :13. ) 

That  is  a  reasonable  requirement.  Further  than  that, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  it  is  a  neces- 
sary requirement.  It  is  no  more  reasonable  to  dispute 
the  existence  of  God  without  applying  that  test  than  it 
was  for  people  in  Galileo's  time  to  dispute  the  existence 
of  Jupiter's  moons  while  refusing  to  look  through  the 
telescope  to  find  out  the  truth. 

The  existence  of  a  personal  God  is  the  fundamental 
proposition  in  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  reasonable 
to  believe  in  him.  Admitting  this,  every  objection  to 
miracles  falls  to  the  ground.  The  universe  itself  is  proof 
of  the  most  stupendous  miracle.  A  short  time  ago  as 
God  counts  time,  where  the  solar  system  now  is  there  was 
nothing.  But  God  by  the  fiat  of  his  power  and  wisdom 
caused  the  worlds  to  spring  into  being.    That  was  a  stu- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    163 

pendous  miracle.  Admitting  that,  no  miracle  is  incre- 
dible where  a  moral  exigency  requires  one.  The  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  the  Christ  from  the  dead  was  one  of 
those  exhibitions  of  divine  power  where  a  great  moral 
exigency — the  salvation  of  men — required  it.  It  is 
reasonable  to  believe  it  upon  the  authority  of  witnesses 
whose  testimony  has  come  down  to  us.  Other  miracles 
are  equally  credible  when  we  admit  the  fundamental  fact 
to  which  the  whole  creation  teistifies,  **In  the  beginning 
God." 

There  are  mysteries  in  religion  as  there  are  in  every 
thing  around  us.  We  cannot  take  more  than  a  step  or 
two  in  any  direction  in  the  physical  sciences  before  we 
are  plunged  into  mysteries  that  we  cannot  solve.  Men 
quarrel  with  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  of  God,  but 
readily  admit  the  trinal  entity  of  man  which  is  just  as 
mysterious,  just  as  intellect-transcending.  If  we  admit 
the  latter  fact  upon  the  authority  of  men  who  have 
studied  men,  it  is  reasonable  to  accept  the  trinity  of 
God  upon  the  evident  teachings  of  God  himself. 

Some  of  the  scripture  teachings  that  seem  mysterious 
are  greatly  if  not  positively  confirmed  by  the  facts  of 
our  everyday  lives,  as  those  concerning  a  future  life 
We  need  not  cite  passages,  they  are  so  common.  But  we 
need  not  depend  entirely  upon  them  for  they  are  not  the 
only  evidence.  They  should  be  received  as  evidence,  but 
they  are  greatly  strengthened  by  the  experiences  of  our 
everyday  lives.  Men  have  not  made  enough  of  common 
sense  arguments  in  this  matter.  They  stand  uncertain, 
doubting,  fearing  or  hoping  that  the  scripture  teaching 
is  true,  while  the  teachings  are  confirmed  by  facts.  In 
answer  to  the  question,  *'If  a  man  die  shall  he  live 
again?"   we  may   answer  confidently,    **yes."     When 


194    Oon^iis,  Foundation  for  Sdence  and  BeUgion 

the  protomartyr  Stephen  was  about  to  die,  it  is  stated 
that  he  *  *  looked  steadfastly  into  heaven  and  saw  the  glory 
of  God  and  Jesus  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God/' 
The  martyr  himself  exclaimed,  *  *  Behold  I  see  the  heavens 
opened  and  the  Son  of  man  standing  on  the  right  hand 
of  God."     (Acts  7:55,56.) 

We  do  not  have  to  go  back  to  apostolic  times  for  inci- 
dents like  that.  "We  have  them  in  our  own  day  in  num- 
berless cases  that  make  more  credible  the  story  in  the 
Acts,  and  that  confirm  our  own  faith  in  the  future  life. 
The  companion  of  my  own  earlier  life,  a  little  while  be- 
fore she  passed  into  the  unseen,  with  a  radiant  smile 
upon  her  face  said,  *  *  I  see  my  dear  Jesus. ' '  Jesus  said 
before  he  went  away,  * '  I  will  come  again  and  receive  you 
unto  myself,  that  where  I  am  there  ye  may  be  also."  It 
is  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  kept  his  promise. 

Only  a  few  months  since  one  dear  to  the  writer  as  life 
itself  was  about  to  pass  into  the  unseen,  when  her  pain- 
racked  features  lighted  up,  and  she  exclaimed,  **  Beauti- 
ful, so  beautiful. "  '  ^  What  is  so  beautiful  ? ' '  was  asked. 
**A11  heaven,"  was  the  reply.  Stephen  saw  the  heavens 
opened  and  so  have  many  in  more  recent  times. 

Some  years  ago  the  writer  had  three  little  sisters  pass 
away  by  that  terrible  scourge,  diphtheria.  The  first  one 
to  go  was  Alice,  the  youngest,  who  was  five  years  old. 
The  night  before  she  died  she  said,  **I  want  to  go  up,  I 
want  to  go  up  and  sing  with  the  angels."  Viola,  aged 
eight  years,  was  the  next  to  be  called.  She  died  looking 
up  and  talking  to  Alice.  Elsie,  aged  twelve  years,  went 
next.  A  little  while  before  she  passed  away  she  said, 
*  *  I  have  seen  Alice  and  Viola.  They  are  dressed  in  white 
and  have  crowns  on  their  heads.  They  are  coming  to 
meet  me  and  Alice  has  a  crown  for  me.     The  river  is 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    165 

cold  but  I  shall  soon  be  there.  The  Savior  beckons  to  me 
with  his  hand  to  come." 

Surely,  ' '  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  hast 
thou  perfected  praise. ' ' 

Another  incident.  A  cousin  of  the  writer  was  near- 
ing  the  end  of  her  earthly  life.  She  spoke  of  seeing 
friends  who  had  gone  before  and  among  them  her  father 
and  mother  and  one  whom  she  did  not  know.  She 
described  a  boy  who  was  at  once  recognized  by  the  older 
sisters  as  a  brother  who  had  died  when  she  was  too 
young  to  remember  him. 

Such  incidents  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  The 
few  related  above  are  some  that  have  come  so  near  us  as 
to  be  almost  a  part  of  our  own  personal  experience.  A 
missionary  writing  from  China  speaks  of  the  triumphant 
death  of  a  convert — a  man — who  had  such  visions  of  the 
unseen  world.  He  (the  missionary)  said  that  such  ex- 
periences were  very  common  and  the  danger  was  that 
if  one  should  pass  away  without  such  visions  his  friends 
might  doubt  the  genuineness  of  his  conversion. 

What  shall  we  say  of  these  things?  Are  they  the 
illusions  of  those  whose  faculties  have  been  weakened  by 
approaching  dissolution  t  That  cannot  be.  Stephen  had 
his  vision  of  heaven  before  the  first  stone  was  thrown, 
and  he  was  stoned  to  death  partly  because  he  had  such  a 
vision  and  told  of  it.  My  companion  had  her  vision  of 
Jesus  the  day  before  she  went  to  him,  and  all  of  the  time 
before  and  after  she  was  as  rational  as  she  ever  was. 

It  is  hardly  reasonable  to  try  to  account  for  the  other 
experiences  on  the  illusion  theory.  The  learned  may 
smile  and  skeptics  may  doubt,  but  the  most  rational  ex- 
planation is  the  one  on  the  face  of  them,  that  is,  they  are 
facts.    Some  who  are  passing  to  the  unseen  are  permitted 


166    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

to  see  a  little  that  is  before  them  for  their  own  encourage- 
ment, and  to  tell  what  they  see  for  the  comfort  of  those 
who  are  left  behind,  and  also  to  strengthen  their  faith 
in  the  scripture  teachings  concerning  the  future  life. 
Skepticism  regarding  such  incidents  is  not  wisdom.  But 
there  is  truth  in  what  the  Duke  of  Argyll  says  in  a 
paraphrase  of  a  sentence  from  Bacon,  **From  the  un- 
locking of  the  gates  of  sense  and  the  kindling  of  a  greater 
natural  light,  incredulity  and  intellectual  night  have 
arisen  in  our  minds. "  It  is  wiser  to  accept  facts  of  what- 
ever nature  and  from  whatever  source  they  may  come 
and  pray  with  Bacon,  **This  also  we  humbly  beseech 
thee  that  human  things  may  not  prejudice  such  as  are 
Divine,  neither  that  from  the  unlocking  of  the  gates  of 
sense,  and  the  kindling  of  a  greater  natural  light,  any- 
thing of  incredulity  or  intellectual  night  may  arise  in 
our  minds  toward  Divine  mysteries. '  '* 

♦Bacon,  quoted  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  Beign  of 
Law,  Chapter  I,  p.  3,  foot  note. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
Individual  Attitude 

IT  is  a  common  supposition  that  a  person  who  ac- 
cepts the  Bible  as  an  authority  for  instruction, 
together  with  such  corroborative  evidences  as  the 
above,  is  necessarily  of  a  credulous  nature,  and 
ready  to  accept  without  question  anything  that  is 
presented.  This  is  not  the  case.  In  general,  the  wisest 
philosophers,  the  most  profound  students  of  science,  the 
greatest  men  generally  have  been  the  firmest  believers  in 
God  and  his  revelation  to  men. 

With  reference  to  himself,  the  writer  may  be  par- 
doned here  for  speaking  in  the  first  person  in  defining 
his  own  attitude  for  the  double  purpose  of  refuting  the 
common  opinion  referred  to  above  and  of  giving  a  brief 
narrative  of  personal  experience.  A  few  pages  concern- 
ing my  own  life  may  not  be  out  of  place,  especially  when 
they  are  written  from  a  sense  of  obligation  and  in  the 
spirit  of  Paul,  who,  when  about  to  introduce  personal 
matters  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  **  Would  to  God  ye 
could  bear  with  me  a  little  in  my  folly,  and  indeed  bear 
with  me.''    (II  Cor.  11:1.) 

Probably  no  skeptic  was  ever  more  opposed  to  receiv- 
ing religious  tinith  upon  the  authority  of  others  than  I 
have  always  been  with  reference  to  everything  that  is 
presented  for  acceptance  as  truth.  No  sentinel  on  duty 
was  ever  more  strict  in  challenging  an  approaching 
stranger  than  I  have  always  been  in  scrutinizing  every- 
thing presented  for  me  to  believe.  I  confidently  believe 
that  I  never  took  a  statement  that  could  properly  be 
questioned,  from  teacher,  preacher,  lecturer  or  author 

167 


168    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

upon  mere  authority.  Even  text  books  which  I  used  in 
school  and  college  were  never  exempt  from  scrutiny.  Such 
expressions  would  occur  as  *Hhe  hot  air  rises  and  the 
cold  air  rushes  in  to  fill  the  vacuum  that  would  otherwise 
occur."  No,  I  could  not  but  say  to  myself,  ^^that  is  not 
correct."  If  I  were  to  put  a  piece  of  iron  into  a  vessel 
and  then  pour  in  mercury  the  iron  would  not  rise  of  its 
own  accord  and  the  mercury  rush  in  to  fill  a  vacuum. 
The  iron  would  be  forced  up  by  the  heavier  mercury.  No 
more  does  the  hot  air  rise  of  its  own  accord.  It  is  forced 
up  by  the  heavier  cold  air.  Sound  was  likened  to  waves 
on  the  surface  of  water.  No,  it  is  the  transmission  of 
unequal  densities  through  a  medium  rather  than  wave- 
lets upon  the  top  of  one.  In  physical  geography  the 
saltness  of  the  oceans  was  accounted  for  by  the  rivers 
constantly  emptying  into  them.  It  is  admitted  that  there 
is  not  much  salt  in  fresh  water  streams,  but,  it  is  con- 
tended, there  is  a  little,  enough  to  salt  the  ocean  in  time. 
But  a  moment's  mental  calculation  shows  that  there  is 
enough  salt  in  the  oceans  to  cover  the  whole  land  surface 
of  the  earth  hundreds  of  feet  deep.  Why  suppose  that 
it  was  once  all  piled  up  on  the  land  ? 

Upon  reading  a  statement  a  short  time  ago  that  from 
the  top  of  a  certain  mountain  a  party  could  see  a  place 
250  miles  away,  the  question  instantly  arose.  Would  the 
curvature  of  the  earth  allow  one  to  see  that  distance? 
Again  a  moment's  mental  calculation  showed  it  to  be 
impossible,  and  that  the  250  miles  must  refer  to  the  cir- 
cuitous paths  they  would  have  to  traverse  in  order  to 
reach  the  place  mentioned. 

These  instances  but  illustrate  an  habitual  attitude  of 
mind  from  my  earliest  boyhood. 

While  yet  a  boy  I  heard  the  principal  of  an  academy 


Oenisis,  Foundation  for  Sci$nc4  and  Religion    169 

ask  a  class  that  was  reciting  to  him,  **What  would  be  the 
motion  of  a  body  falling  through  the  earth  T'  Some  said 
one  thing  and  some  another,  but  the  teacher  finally  closed 
the  discussion  by  saying,  '*It  would  stop  at  the  center." 
I  thought  to  myself,  No,  there  is  nothing  to  stop  it  there, 
and  after  a  few  moments'  thought  I  saw  that  it  would  go 
on  through  to  the  other  side  of  the  earth  and  continue 
to  vibrate  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  pendulum  vibra- 
tion. It  was  fully  35  years  before  I  knew  that  any  one 
else  had  conceived  the  idea.  At  the  time  I  saw  it  as  if 
by  intuition  though  I  afterward  demonstrated  it. 

It  is  in  accordance  with  that  principle  that  I  afterward 
reasoned  that  the  interior  even  of  the  sun  may  be  cold 
and  solid  and  that  the  interior  of  the  earth  and  other 
planets  may  be  the  same. 

When  the  theory  of  the  correlation  and  conservation 
of  forces  and  of  the  mechanical  equivalent  of  heat  was 
first  brought  to  my  notice  I  rejected  it,  but,  as  usual,  I 
investigated  it.  I  calculated  the  effect  of  a  certain 
amount  of  heat  acting  through  diflferent  substances.  The 
result  seemed  to  sustain  my  first  opinion,  for  the  visible 
effect  was  only  from  one-half  to  one-thirtieth  of  the  pro- 
ducing cause.  At  least,  if  my  calculations  were  correct, 
from  twenty-nine  thirtieths  to  one-half  of  the  force  was 
exhausted  in  overcoming  the  cohesion  of  gases  (Tyndall) 
or  in  some  way  it  was  tangled  up  with  the  intermolecular 
forces. 

When  the  effect  of  the  tides  in  retarding  the  earth's 
axial  rotation  was  first  suggested,  it  received  the  usual 
challenge,  but  a  little  thought  convinced  me  that  the  idea 
was  correct,  and  I  at  once  used  it,  to  account  for  the  rate 
of  the  moon's  axial  rotation.  Of  course  its  present  rate 
may  have  been  its  initial  rate  of  rotation.    But  whether 


170    0§n4sis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Relation 

its  rate  were  faster  or  slower,  if  there  had  been  any  con- 
siderable body  of  water  on  it  its  present  rate  would  have 
been  produced  by  its  tides. 

In  1872  the  nebular  hypothesis  was  brought  forcibly  to 
my  attention,  and  it  received  a  peremptory  challenge.  I 
suggested  to  my  teacher  in  mathematics  that  I  believed 
that  I  could  prove  mathematically  that  it  was  impossible 
for  a  nebulous  mass  so  to  contract  as  to  produce  the 
planets  with  their  present  motions.  But  sitting  down  one 
evening  to  the  task  I  found  the  opposite  to  be  the  case, 
but  concluded  that  contraction  must  have  been  exceed- 
ingly rapid.  ( See  above. )  That  was  the  beginning  of  my 
study  of  cosmogony,  and  I  may  state  that  every  principle 
in  the  preceding  section  upon  this  subject  was  an  original 
discovery,  though  many  of  them  have  been  since  con- 
firmed by  the  authority  of  others. 

So  also  when  the  theory  of  organic  evolution  came  up 
for  consideration  it  naturally  and  necessarily  was  sub- 
jected to  the  same  scrutiny,  and  with  the  results  recorded 
in  the  preceding  pages. 

Again  I  state  that  these  things  are  mentioned  simply 
to  show  my  habitual  or  rather  natural  attitude  toward 
everything  that  is  presented  for  my  acceptance.  I  am 
not  easily  overawed  by  the  reputation  of  any  man,  and 
have  long  had  the  habit  of  investigating  for  myself  state- 
ments made  even  by  specialists  in  their  own  departments. 

It  was  owing  to  this  irresistible  tendency  to  investigate 
that  I  demonstrated  Kepler  ^s  Third  Law  in  my  own  way 
and  the  effect  of  ellipticity  of  planetary  orbits  upon  the 
operation  of  that  law. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  with  such  a  constitu- 
tional make-up,  religion  would  not  be  accepted  with  an 
unreasonable  credulity.    For  some  years  I  was  a  skeptic 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    171 

Not  that  skepticism  was  the  outcome  of  logical  processes, 
but  such  a  mind  as  I  have  described  is  the  soil  in  which 
skepticism,  like  a  fungous  growth,  naturally  flourishes. 

When  in  a  season  of  religious  awakening  a  friend 
spoke  to  me  upon  the  subject  of  personal  religion,  my 
reply  was  to  the  effect  that  the  phenomena  of  religious 
experience  were  in  accordance  with  natural  laws.  That 
is,  the  laws  of  mind  acting  in  conjunction  with  certain 
influences  from  without  could  produce  such  phenomena. 
Given  a  certain  temperament  or  mental  constitution  that 
could  respond  to  the  appeals  of  supposed  truth  such 
phenomena  were  possible.  But  I  supposed  that  my  own 
mental  make-up  was  not  of  that  kind,  and  that  however 
much  I  might  desire  it,  I  could  never  undergo  such  ex- 
I»erience8. 

Even  then  (two  years  before  entering  college)  I  could 
sec  far  enough  over  into  the  domain  of  **The  Reign  of 
Law  in  the  Spiritual  World"  to  know  what  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  referred  to  when  he  wrote,  *'I  had  intended  to 
conclude  [his  book,  The  Reign  of  Law]  with  a  chapter 
on  Law  in  Christian  Theology.  •  •  •  •  Por  the 
present  however  I  have  shrunk  from  entering  upon  ques- 
tions so  profound,  of  such  critical  import,  and  so  in- 
^parably  connected  with  religious  controversy." 

Again,  I  make  this  statement  to  show  that  it  was  not 
from  mere  credulity  that  I  accepted  Christ  as  a  personal 
Savior.  I  found  that  there  are  two  ways  out  of  skepti- 
cism. One  is  by  the  study  of  the  evidences  of  Christian- 
ity. This  course,  if  one  has  the  mental  power  to  com- 
prehend them,  will  remove  intellectual  doubt. 

The  other  way  which  is  quicker  and  more  satisfactory, 
because  more  life-giving,  is  simply  to  take  the  right  atti- 
tude of  will,  or,  in  popular  language,  to  open  the  heart 


172    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

to  receive  Grod,  and  He  will  come  in  and  bring  all  the 
evidences  any  one  can  need.  That  was  my  own  way.  It 
was  satisfactory.  It  not  only  removed  doubt,  it  pro- 
duced certainty  as  to  some  vital  things.  There  are  cer- 
tainties in  the  religion  of  Christ. 

I  advise  young  Christians  to  reach  as  many  of  these 
certainties  as  possible  and  as  soon  as  possible.  We  may 
know  as  well  as  believe.  The  object  of  this  little  volume 
is  to  help  reach  some  of  these  certainties. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
An  Individual  Experience  of  Ood  Present  and  Ouiding 

FOR  many  years  before  I  was  converted,  I  had  a 
strong  conviction  that  if  I  ever  became  a  Chris- 
tian I  should  have  to  be  a  minister  of  the  gospel. 
This  was  occasioned  by  an  elder  sister's  telling 
me,  while  I  was  but  a  child,  that  it  had  been  revealed  to 
her  that  I  was  to  be  minister.  My  whole  being  revolted  at 
the  idea.  When  a  little  older  I  wanted  to  study  law, 
and  while  a  private  soldier  in  the  civil  war  I  carried 
around  with  me,  in  my  knapsack,  the  two  large  leather- 
bound  volumes  of  Blackstone's  commentaries  to  read  as 
I  had  opportunity.  When  I  accepted  Jesus  the  Christ 
^  Savior  I  accepted  him  also  as  Lord.  I  must  do  his 
will  and  work.  I  tried  however  to  shake  off  the  old  im- 
pression, and  to  believe  that  I  could  serve  my  Master 
and  still  pursue  my  own  inclinations  as  to  my  life's 
work.  It  was  a  question  that  must  be  settled  with  greater 
certainty  than  by  a  mere  impression,  however  strong. 
There  were  a  number  of  other  questions  closely  allied  to 
this  fundamental  one  that  must  be  settled,  so  that  in 
after  life  there  would  never  be  any  vacillating  or  halt- 
ing. I  wanted  to  be  guided  with  absolute  certainty  to 
the  right  course.  The  secret  of  God's  guidance  has 
always  been  a  secret  between  Himself  and  me.  '*The 
secret  of  the  Lord  is  with  them  that  fear  him."  Friends 
sometimes  have  secrets  between  themselves  that  it  would 
be  a  violation  of  confidence  to  tell  to  any  one  else.  This 
was  a  secret  that  I  always  felt  that  it  would  be  sacrilege 
to  reveal.  It  may  have  been  owing  in  part  to  constitu- 
tional reticence,  but  I  am  sure  that  it  was  owing  more 

173 


174    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

to  the  fear  that  others  would  not  regard  its  sacred  char- 
acter as  I  regarded  it.  Very  few,  I  felt,  would  unre- 
servedly believe  it,  and  incredulity  on  the  part  of  others 
would  be  revolting  to  me.  In  a  few  instances  in  the  past 
it  has  seemed  that  I  might  make  some  revelation  of  it  for 
the  benefit  of  others,  but  the  impulse,  **It's  a  secret  that 
must  not  be  revealed,'*  has  always  restrained  me.  It  has 
been  only  very  recently  that  I  have  felt  relieved  of  that 
restraint,  and  a  conviction  that  I  ought  to  speak  of  it  as 
proof  that  God  is  near,  has  taken  its  place.  Hardly  a  veil 
intervenes  between  Him  and  us.  He  is  ready  and  willing 
10  guide  his  children  when  they  seek  his  guidance. 

But  first  I  may  speak  of  the  experience  of  another  as 
really  a  part  of  my  own,  for  it  was  that  which  first 
determined  my  own  course.  A  gentleman,  the  one  before 
referred  to  as  the  one  who  spoke  to  me  about  being  a 
Christian,  narrated  to  me  an  experience  of  his. 

There  was  no  injunction  of  secrecy,  but  I  have  never 
mentioned  it  to  any  one.  His  wife  had  died  and  left  him 
with  a  family  of  little  children.  He  had  no  one  to  help 
him  in  bringing  up  those  little  ones.  He  felt  that  he 
must  have  a  companion,  and  a  suitable  one,  and  so  re- 
solved to  leave  the  matter  to  the  Lord. 

He  wrote  the  names,  on  separate  slips  of  paper,  of  all 
of  the  ladies  of  his  acquaintance  who  were  eligible,  put 
them  in  a  receptacle  and  was  about  to  draw  when  he  re- 
membered one  whom  he  had  met  but  once  or  twice  and 
who  lived  in  a  distant  part  of  the  state.  He  added  her 
name,  and  prayed  most  earnestly  that  God  would  guide 
his  hand.  He  drew,  and  drew  the  name  of  the  one  last 
mentioned.  He  replaced  it  in  the  receptacle  and  prayed 
again  that  if  she  were  the  one  chosen  for  him,  he  might 
draw  the  same  name  a  second  time.    He  drew,  and  the 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    175 

second  time  drew  the  same  name.  Again  he  replaced  the 
name  in  the  receptacle,  shook  them  up  thoroughly  as  be- 
fore, drew,  and  for  the  third  time  drew  the  same  name. 
All  doubt  was  now  removed.  He  made  the  journey, 
visited  her  in  her  father's  home,  and,  as  he  was  certain 
that  he  would  do,  took  her  home  with  him  his  wife. 

This  incident  gave  me  faith  to  let  the  Lord  determine 
my  future  course  by  directing  the  lot.  **The  lot  is  cast 
into  the  lap;  but  the  whole  disposing  thereof  is  of  the 
Lord.''     (Prov.  16:33.) 

Of  the  disciples  it  is  said,  **They  prayed  and  cast 
lots."  Some  may  think  that  they  thus  left  the  decision 
to  chance.  No,  it  was  leaving  it  to  the  Lord.  If  one  in- 
tended thus  to  leave  it  to  chance,  chance  would  decide 
the  matter.  But  if  one  is  Spirit-moved  to  leave  it  to  God 
in  that  way,  God  will  decide.  At  least  that  proved  to 
be  my  experience. 

One  of  the  first  questions  submitted  was.  Shall  I  go  on 
studying  law!  The  answer,  three  times  in  succession, 
was,  no.  Another  question  was.  Must  I  preach  the  gos- 
pel ?  After  the  most  earnest  prayer  for  guidance  and  for 
God's  forbearance,  after  the  first  throw  of  the  die,  the 
answer  three  times  in  succession  was,  yes.  I  may  say 
that  in  no  case  could  the  answer  be  accepted  until  the 
die,  after  the  most  earnest  prayer  before  every  cast,  had 
made  the  same  answer  three  times  in  succession.  The 
question,  Shall  I  take  a  course  of  study?  was  similarly 
answered  in  the  affirmative  three  times  in  succession. 

Shall  I  go  to school?    Again  the  answer,  three  times 

in  succession,  was  yes.  In  all,  some  twenty  questions, 
involving  some  sixty  throws  of  the  die,  were  thus 
answered  without  confusion  or  contradiction. 

And    not    only    were  the  most  important  questions 


176    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

settled  in  that  way  but  some  which  to  the  general  reader, 
would  seem  of  small  consequence. 

I  was  teaching  a  school  one  winter,  which,  by  the 
public  road,  was  about  fourteen  miles  from  home,  but  by 
going  a  part  of  the  way  by  logging  roads,  across  fields 
and  forests,  and  crossing  the  river  on  the  ice,  I  could 
reach  it  by  nine  miles'  travel.  I  went  home  quite  fre- 
quently and  always  by  the  shorter  route,  starting  Friday 
after  school.  One  Friday  afternoon  was  clear  and  warm. 
The  snow  was  melting  and  the  slush  was  deep,  making 
the  walking  very  difficult.  If  the  weather  continued 
warm  my  overcoat  would  be  only  a  burden.  Should  I 
take  it?  The  lot,  as  usual  three  times  in  succession, 
answered,  yes.  I  took  it.  Friday  evening  was  warm  and 
pleasant.  Saturday  was  like  a  balmy  spring  day.  Sun- 
day forenoon  was  just  as  warm.  I  began  to  question  with 
myself  whether  I  had  not  been  misguided  for  once.  The 
weather  speedily  answered.  It  suddenly  turned  most 
bitterly  cold  with  a  biting  wind.  We  lived  in  the  country 
and  it  would  have  been  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  have 
bought  or  borrowed  a  coat.  If  I  had  not  taken  my  own 
I  should  have  suffered  even  >f  I  could  have  endured  that 
nine  mile  walk. 

I  may  say  that  never  have  I  had  an  instant's  doubt  as 
to  the  wisdom,  the  benevolence  of  every  answer  so  re- 
ceived. Although  in  many  cases  it  cost  a  terrible  struggle 
to  obey,  the  years  have  shown  that  the  decisions  were 
directed  by  a  wisdom  infinitely  greater  than  my  own. 

One  of  the  strange  things  connected  with  the  matter  is 
that  no  answer  was  satisfactory  to  me  until  the  die  had 
given  the  same  answer  three  times  in  succession.  I  never 
did,  I  never  could,  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  first  or 
second  throw.    But  when  the  third  answer  confirmed  the 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    177 

first  and  second,  the  decision  was  absolute.  But  why 
three  times!  I  will  not  try  to  say  with  certainty,  but 
one  thing  is  certain.  The  first  answer  might  ha^e  been 
attributed  to  chance.  It  would  not  be  impossible  for  a 
second  answer  to  come  in  the  same  way.  But  it  would 
be  unreasonable  to  attribute  a  third  answer  to  chance. 

God  never  seemed  to  reprove  me  for  lack  of  faith  in 
not  accepting  his  first  or  second  answer  as  final.  He 
was  willing  and  wished  to  prove  beyond  a  peradventure 
that  it  was  Himself  and  not  chance  that  was  guiding  me. 
Of  this  he  gave  reasonable  proof  and  he  asks  nothing 
unreasonable  of  emy  one.  He  was  willing  to  answer 
three  times.  He  probably  expected  me  to  ask  three  times. 
**In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  shall 
be  established.^' 

With  reference  to  his  expecting  one  to  ask  three  times, 
an  incident  from  India  is  suggestive.  Very  much 
abridged  it  is  as  follows: 

In  one  of  his  long  missionary  journeys  the  Rev.  Jacob 
Chamberlain,  with  a  party  of  about  fifty  men,  found 
himself  in  a  most  dangerous  position.  They  were  travel- 
ing parallel  with  the  Gtodavery  river  and  about  a  mile 
from  it,  through  a  jungle  infested  with  man-eating  tigers 
and  the  still  worse  malaria  that  might  prove  fatal  with  a 
single  night's  exposure.  They  had  expected  to  reach 
high  ground  beyond  an  afiBuent  of  the  river,  but  owing  to 
high  water  they  could  not  reach  it.  He  silently  prayed 
for  deliverance.  The  answer  came  in  a  kind  of  inward 
voice,  *'Turn  to  the  left  and  go  to  the  Godavery.''  He 
rode  to  the  front  and  questioned  the  guides,  but  found 
that  there  was  no  village,  no  house,  no  boat,  not  even  a 
piece  of  high  ground  where  they  could  safely  pitch  their 
tents  in  that  direction.    He  fell  to  the  rear  and  again 


178     Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

sought  help  from  God.  Again  the  answer  came,  *'Turn 
to  the  left  and  go  to  the  river  "  Again  he  consulted  the 
guides  with  the  same  result.  The  third  time  he  prayed, 
as  life  depended  upon  it,  and  the  third  time  he  received 
the  same  answer  in  the  same  way.  This  time  all  doubt 
vanished  and  he  ordered  his  men  at  once  to  turn  to  the 
left  and  cut  their  way  to  the  river.  But  there  was  no 
need  to  cut  their  way,  for  jast  then  they  struck  an  old 
path  that  led  directly  to  the  river.  Here  they  found  a 
large  flat  boat,  large  enough  for  their  tent  and  the  whole 
company.  On  this  they  spent  the  night  in  safety,  and 
on  it  pursued  their  journey  the  next  day.  But  the  point 
is  that  it  was  after  the  third  answer  that  they  struck  the 
only  path  leading  to  the  river. 

Some  of  the  world's  wise  ones  may  smile  with  incre- 
dulity, but,  **It  is  written,  I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of 
the  wise  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the  understanding  of 
the  prudent.''  (I  Cor.  1:19.)  Our  Savior  prays,  '*! 
thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes. ' '  (Mat.  11 :25. )  *  *  If 
thou  scornest,  thou  alone  must  bear  it. "    (Prov.  9 :12.) 

The  question  may  arise  as  to  whether  any  and  every 
one  can  be  guided  in  the  same  way  as  I  have  mentioned 
in  my  own  experience.  Probably  not,  but  still  I  believe 
that  the  guidance  may  be  in  accordance  with  the  measure 
of  faith.  But  faith  in  a  particular  direction  may  be  an 
especial  gift  for  a  specific  end.  The  twelfth  chapter  of 
First  Corinthians  is  suggestive  along  that  line.  **For 
to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom;  to 
another  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit;  to 
another  faith  by  the  same  Spirit,"  and  so  on.  (See 
4-11.)     *'Are  all  apostles?    Are  all  teachers?    Are  all 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    179 

workers  of  miracles  T  Have  all  the  gifts  of  healing  ?  Do 
all  speak  with  tongues  ?  Do  all  interpret  ? "  **No/'isthe 
implied  answer.  But  as  the  apostle  before  said  (see  verse 
11),  *'But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self  same 
Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will."  It 
is  not  always  as  the  individual  may  choose,  but  as  the 
Spirit  wills.  But  I  believe  that  many  more  might  have 
guidance  in  the  same  way  if  they  were  earnest  enough 
to  know  God's  will,  that  they  might  do  it.  As  in  some 
other  cases,  doing  is  necessary  to  knowing.  For  guidance 
in  that  particular  way  the  obedience  must  be  implicit,  un- 
compromising, absolute.  But  in  one  way  or  another 
one  may  be  conscious  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  present  and 
guiding.  With  me  that  particular  manner  of  guidance 
was  pursued  but  for  a  short  time.  After  those  vital  ques- 
tions were  settled  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  and, 
too,  after  such  lessons  as  to  God's  presence  and  guidance, 
I  was  thrown  more  upon  my  own  responsibility  to  use 
my  own  judgment  in  matters  of  duty.  Still  there  has 
never  been  lacking  an  assurance  of  Divine  guidance 
when  needed  and  asked  for. 

A  growing  conviction  of  duty  in  some  particular  regard 
is  often,  perhaps  always,  a  call  of  God.  One  may  have  at 
first  a  kind  of  vague  suggestion  as  to  some  possible  duty, 
not  strong  enough  of  itself  to  form  a  positive  conviction. 
But  when  that  is  repeated  with  increasing  force,  month 
after  month,  perhaps  year  after  year,  the  call  may  be- 
come imperative.  My  own  experience,  again,  may  be 
suggestive  to  others.  Months,  perhaps  a  year  or  so, 
before  preparing  my  little  book,  ** Jesus  Only,''  I  had  a 
slight  impression  that  I  ought  to  prepare  a  bojk  with 
that  title.  With  the  passing  months  the  conviction  be- 
came stronger  until  it  became  so  strong  that  I  felt  that 


180    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

it  must  be  obeyed.  I  felt  tired,  worn  out,  and  greatly 
desired  a  change  of  pastorate  for  relief.  I  had  not  come 
to  a  positive  conclusion  concerning  the  book,  but  one 
evening,  on  my  way  to  my  room,  I  halted  for  a  moment 
in  the  doorway  and  mentally  promised  God  that  if  he 
would  give  me  another  field  I  would  write  such  a  book. 
No  audible  voice  could  have  been  heard  more  plainly  or 
have  produced  a  stronger  impression  than  the  reply  in 
my  consciousness,  ' '  Why  not  write  it  before  you  move  ? ' ' 
My  own  answer  was  instantaneous,  '*Lord  I  will.''  I 
finally  redeemed  my  promise  and  a  few  months  after  its 
publication  the  book  itself  caused  me  to  receive  a  call  to 
a  field  that  in  my  physical  condition  at  that  time  was 
ideal. 

Sometimes  I  have  had  a  feeling  of  rebellion,  think- 
ing that  other  people  have  talents  that  are  of  value, 
while  I  have  only  the  one  little  talent  of  a  certain  power 
of  abstract  thought,  and  I  have  been  tempted  to  say,  * '  I 
will  not  use  it.''  But  while  at  work  at  something  else 
the  impression  would  come  as  strong  as  any  audible  voice 
could  have  made  it,  ''Burying  your  one  little  talent." 
Again  it  would  be,  ''Despising  your  birthright."  And 
in  that  manner  I  have  been  urged  to  take  up  and  con- 
tinue the  work.  I  believe  that  such  promptings  have 
come  from  God.  My  former  experiences  of  His  directing 
me  lead  me  the  more  positively  to  that  conclusion. 

But  there  is  another  way  in  which  God  speaks  to  us 
and  that  is  through  his  printed  word.  Here,  again,  it  is 
my  conviction  that  many  Christians  do  not  secure  all 
the  privileges  that  are  at  their  disposal.  How  many, 
many  times  when  I  have  wanted  courage  or  hope,  com- 
fort or  inspiration,  I  have  opened  my  Bible  at  random 
and  have  found  just  what  I  have  needed.    Indeed,  when 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    181 

really  in  need,  the  word  has  never  failed  me.  Sometimes 
the  recollection  of  a  passage  of  scripture  has  served  the 
same  purpose. 

Once,  years  ago,  when  in  trouble  and  with  some 
anxiety  as  to  financial  matters  the  passage  came  to  me, 
**  Trust  in  the  Lord  and  do  good,  so  shalt  thou  dwell 
in  the  land  and  verily  thou  shalt  be  fed.''  (Ps.  37:3.) 
It  was  like  the  voice  of  God  addressed  to  me  individually. 
It  became  my  life  motto  and  ever  since  then  my  chief 
concern  has  been  to  do  the  work  that  He  would  have  me 
do  and  leave  the  results  with  Him.  At  least  that  has 
been  the  attitude  of  the  will,  my  purpose  which  has 
prevailed  in  the  profounder  depths  of  life,  though,  in 
spite  of  this,  the  surface  is  often  sadly  ruffled. 

When  feeling  wronged  there  is  an  instinctive  desire  for 
revenge.  But  the  passage,  **  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will 
repay,  saith  the  Lord,*'  (Rom.  12:19.)  will  check  that 
desire,  and  place  in  its  stead  the  prayer,  **Lord,  this  con- 
cerns Thee  more  than  it  does  me,  take  the  matter  into 
Thine  o\nti  hands,  but  temper  justice  with  mercy. ' '  The 
result  is  a  calm,  settled  peace  with  reference  to  the  mat- 
ter, which  is  vastly  more  conducive  to  happiness  than 
cherishing  a  purpose  to  seek  revenge  would  be. 

The  voice  of  God  comes  to  us  in  remembering  or  read- 
ing the  written  word  of  Qod,  the  Bible.  An  incident  to 
illustrate  the  latter. 

On  one  occasion  I  had  been  reading  Dr.  Behrends' 
book,  **The  Old  Testament  Under  Fire."  I  was  myself 
a  little  disturbed  in  mind  as  to  the  outcome  of  recent 
criticism  and  was  about  to  retire  for  the  night.  I  had 
gone  about  half  way  up  stairs  when  a  strong  inward  im- 
pulse came,  **Go  back  and  read  a  passage  of  scripture." 
I  was  about  to  disregard  it  and  go  on,  but  it  came  again, 


182    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

' '  Go  back  and  read  a  passage  of  scripture. ' '  I  returned 
asking  myself  what  message  there  was  for  me.  Opening 
my  Bible  at  random  my  eyes  fell  upon  the  twelfth 
Psalm.  I  read  the  first  few  verses  and  thought  that  there 
was  nothing  in  particular  there,  but  in  the  6th  and  7th 
verses  I  read,  **The  words  of  the  Lord  are  pure  words: 
as  silver  tried  in  a  furnace  of  earth,  purified  seven  times. 
Thou  shalt  keep  them,  0  Lord,  thou  shalt  preserve  them 
from  this  generation  forever.'* 

There  was  my  message.  The  words  were  a  revelation 
and  an  assurance.  Why,  I  thought,  it  was  no  new  thing, 
even  in  David's  time  for  the  word  of  God  to  be  under 
fire,  to  be  tried  as  in  a  furnace  of  earth.  And,  by  the 
way,  there  may  be  a  good  deal  of  the  earthly  element  now 
in  the  trying  of  the  word  of  God. 

But  the  assurance  that  sustained  the  Psalmist  is  en- 
couraging still.  **Thou  shalt  keep  them,  0  Lord,  thou 
shalt  preserve  them  from  this  generation  forever. ' ' 

These  are  a  few  instances  of  a  great  many  in  which  the 
printed  word  has  been  not  only  a  guide  but  a  source  of 
encouragement,  of  hope  and  instruction.  The  word  of 
God  in  its  simplicity,  as  it  reads,  is  an  authority  for  in- 
struction. It  is  more,  it  is  life  giving.  I  am  assured  by 
my  own  experience  that  it  is  not  dogmatism  to  say  that 
the  Bible  is  God's  word.  And  my  experience  is  not 
unique.  It  is  the  testimony  of  the  experience  of  multi- 
tudes in  all  ages  and  climes.  The  Bible  not  only  contains 
God's  word,  mixed  up  with  a  mass  of  verbiage  of  human 
authority,  leaving  to  each  reader  the  responsibility  of 
picking  out  God's  part,  but  as  a  whole  it  is  God's  mes- 
sage to  men. 


CHAPTER  XV 
The  New  Life  From  Ood 

IN  a  preceding  chapter  (VII)  we  touched  incident- 
ally, and  only  in  connection  with  another  sub- 
ject, upon  the  nature  of  that  life  which  those 
possess  who  by  accepting  Christ  have  received 
subjective  salvation.  But  this  subject  deserves  a  more 
extended  consideration  than  was  there  incidentally  given 
it. 

Jesus  says,  (John,  10:10)  **I  am  come  that  they  might 
Lave  life  and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly.*' 
In  these  words  He  defines  His  mission  to  the  world. 
With  reference  to  the  human  race,  everything  else  in  His 
life,  death  and  resurrection  was  subordinated  to  one  end, 
contributory  to  the  one  purpose  of  giving  life  to  those 
whom  He  called  His  sheep.  And  it  is  surprising,  when 
we  come  to  consider  it,  how  much  He  has  to  say  about 
life,  and  of  Himself  as  the  giver  of  life — how  much  He 
has  to  say  about  eternal  life,  everlasting  life  and  of  Him- 
self as  the  one  who  bestows  it.  But  He  was  not  moving 
among  dead  bodies.  He  was  not  talking  to  dead  bodies 
So  the  natural  life,  of  course  was  not  meant.  It  is  ap- 
parent also  that  He  did  not  refer  to  a  mere  continuance 
of  existence  after  the  spirit  of  man  had  left  the  body. 
This  continuance  is  admitted  by  him  and  he  taught  it. 
In  one  sentence  he  speaks  of  a  future  life  for  both  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  **  These  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life 
eternal.''  Daniel  says  that  they  shall  '* awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 

183 


184    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

tempt. ' '  Paul  also  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  the  just 
and  of  the  unjust. 

The  immortality  of  the  spirit  of  man,  both  of  the 
wicked  and  the  good  was  admitted  in  Christ's  time,  and 
has  been  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church 
during  all  of  the  ages  of  its  existence.  What,  then,  does 
he  mean  when  he  says,  '  ^  I  am  come  that  they  might  have 
life  1 ' '  The  fact  seems  to  be  this :  there  is  a  kind  of  life 
that  is  different  in  kind  from  the  common  mortal  or  im- 
mortal life  of  man.  It  is  different  in  kind,  and  not  simply 
in  degree  or  duration.  All  men  have  an  immortal  spirit 
and  that  without  regard  to  character.  But  the  life  that 
Christ  speaks  of  is  as  different  from  that,  as  the  im- 
mortal life  of  man  differs  from  animal  or  as  animal, 
differs  from  vegetable  life.  The  facts  seem  to  be  that 
when  man  was  created  he  was  endued,  not  only  with  an 
immortal  spirit,  but  with  a  life  principle  that  partook  of 
the  Divine  nature.  He  was  made  in  God 's  image,  in  His 
likeness.  When  man  sinned  that  life  was  extinguished. 
And  here  is  a  suggestion  as  to  the  effect  of  that  sin.  It 
extinguished  the  divine  life,  and  no  created  being  can 
beget  in  his  offspring  a  different  kind  of  life  from  that 
which  he,  himself,  possesses.  After  man  had  lost  that 
divine  life  he  could  not  beget  it  in  his  offspring.  So  it  is 
a  literal  truth  that  *'in  Adam  all  died."  Not  one  of  his 
race  could  have  by  inheritance  that  true,  that  divine 
life  that  allied  him  to  God.  If  he  or  any  of  his  descend- 
ants were  to  have  that  life  it  must  be  created  in  him 
anew.  So  **if  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  crea- 
ture."   He  has  a  new  life  created  within  him. 

To  restate  the  proposition.  When  man  was  created 
there  was  a  life  principle  within  him  that  was  termed  by 
Christ  eternal  life  or  everlasting  life.    It  was  a  life  prin- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    185 

ciple  entirely  distinct  from  his  common  human  life.  It 
partook  of  the  divine  and  allied  him  to  the  Divine  author 
of  life.  It  was  of  a  kind  that  would  produce  Godlike 
living,  develop  a  Godlike  character.  It  was  of  this 
kind  of  life  that  the  death  sentence  was  pronounced  upon 
disobedience.  God  said  to  Adam,  **In  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die."  But  Satan  said, 
'*Thou  shalt  not  surely  die."  Which  was  right?  That 
depends  upon  what  we  mean  by  the  term  death.  The 
separation  of  the  life  principle  from  the  tree  is  death 
to  the  tree  because  it  is  the  extinction  of  its  life.  The 
separation  of  the  life  principle  from  the  animal  is  death 
for  the  same  reason,  there  is  an  extinction  of  life.  The 
separation  of  the  immortal  spirit  from  the  man  is  called 
death,  but  only  by  way  of  accommodation.  There  is  no 
extinction  of  a  life  principle.  That  goes  on  living  in- 
dependently of  the  body.  If  this  separation  were  the 
death  spoken  of,  then  Satan  was  right,  for  that  separa- 
tion did  not  take  place  until  about  900  years  afterward. 
But  if  the  extinction  of  the  divine  life  principle  were 
referred  to  then  (Jod  was  right.  The  life  principle  that 
allied  Adam  to  God,  that  would  develop  (Jodlike  char- 
acter. Godlike  living,  became  extinct  and  that  was  death 
in  an  infinitely  more  important  sense  than  the  mere  sepa- 
ration of  the  spirit  from  the  body.  That  the  divine  life 
had  gone  out  was  shown  by  the  conduct  of  our  first 
parents  after  they  had  sinned.  Instead  of  loving  God 
and  His  companionship  as  before,  they  feared,  hated, 
shunned  Him.    They  were  dead  as  to  the  divine  life. 

That  declaration,  *  *  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die, ' '  with  its  fearful  realization,  helps  us  to 
understand  his  meaning  in  other  places.  But  before  con- 
sidering these,  note  that  the  first  sin  was  unbelief  and  the 


186    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

result  of  that  was  disobedience.  Man  lost  the  divine  life 
by  unbelief  and  disobedience,  he  can  regain  it  only  by 
reversing  the  process,  by  believing  and  obeying. 

Now  with  this  view  of  spiritual  death  and  eternal  life, 
observe  the  light  it  casts  upon  certain  passages  of  scrip- 
ture and  how  these  same  passages  tend  to  confirm  the 
view  itself.  *'I  am  come  that  they  might  have  life." 
It  was  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  impart  a  life  that  they 
already  had.  He  must  have  meant  something  entirely 
different  from  the  natural  life.  He  refers  to  eternal  life 
as  He  elsewhere  says,  '*I  give  unto  my  sheep  eternal 
life.''  '*The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life."  Or,  changing 
the  order  for  clearness,  ** Eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God." 
(Rom.  6:23.)  It  is  a  new  imparting  of  a  life  principle. 
Note  again,  *  *  she  that  liveth  to  pleasure  is  dead  while  she 
liveth. "  (I  Tim.  5 :6. )  Again,  *  *  To  be  carnally  minded 
is  death."  (Rom.  8:6.)  Thou  hast  a  name  to  live  but 
art  dead."  (Rev.  3:1.)  There  is  nothing  figurative, 
mystical  or  mysterious  about  these  words.  They  but  ex- 
press a  literal  truth,  for,  so  far  as  the  divine  life  is  con- 
cerned, those  classes  are  dead.  They  are  dead  as  Adam 
was  dead  as  concerns  the  divine  life  after  his  transgres- 
sion. 

**You  hath  he  quickened  who  were  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins."  (Eph.  2:1.)  The  word  *' quickened"  means 
the  bringing  to  life,  the  giving  or  imparting  of  life.  All 
were  dead  as  concerned  the  divine  life  that  Adam  lost  by 
sin.  Paul  again  says,  speaking  of  God  who  is  rich  in 
mercy,  **even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  hath  he  quick- 
ened" or  given  life  to.  (Eph.  2:5.)  He  uses  the  same 
words  in  his  letter  to  the  Colossians.  Again  he  says, 
**If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature."  And 
again,  **For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth 


Oenesis.  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    187 

anything  nor  uncircuincision  but  a  new  creature/'  In 
these  passages  he  can  refer  to  but  one  thing,  and  that  is 
the  new,  the  different  kind  of  life  that  is  created  within 
those  who  believe  on  Christ. 

How  is  this  new  life  obtained?  We  have  just  spoken 
of  it  as  the  gift  of  God.  But  Christ  also  gives  it.  John 
says  it  was  by  Christ  that  (Jod  made  the  worlds.  It  is 
also  through  Him  that  this  life  is  imparted.  Jesus  Him- 
self says,  **for  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and 
(luickeneth  them:  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he 
will.'*  (John  5:21.)  Paul  says,  **the  first  man  Adam 
was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quick- 
ening spirit, ' '  or  one  that  imparts  life.  Christ  tells  what 
kind  of  life,  **I  give  my  sheep  eternal  life."  John  says 
(»f  him,  **as  many  as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  the 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  (lod,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name:  who  were  bom,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man  but  of 
God.''  (John  1:12,13.)  John  again  speaks  of  that  life 
or  of  its  nature,  **  Whosoever  is  bom  of  (Jod  doth  not 
commit  sin,  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him  and  he  cannot 
^in,  because  he  is  born  of  God. "  (I  John  3 :9. )  A  divine 
nature  is  in  those  who  are  born  of  God,  which  they  have 
inherited  from  their  Father. 

That  is  the  significance  of  the  new  birth.  It  is  the 
beginning  of  a  new  life,  a  different  kind  of  life  from  that 
which  they  had  before.  It  partakes  of  the  divine  and 
allies  one  to  the  Divine.  It  is  thus,  as  Peter  says,  that  we 
are  ''partakers  of  the  Divine  nature." 

Observe,  too,  what  Christ  himself  says  of  this  life  and 
of  Himself  as  the  author  of  it.  He  says  to  Nicodemus, 
**Ye  must  be  born  again,''  and  note  that  this  was  spoken 
to  a  rabbi,  a  member  of  the  sanhedrin,  a  religious  teacher, 


188    Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

a  theologian.  He  had  knowledge,  influence,  position  and 
theology,  but  all  of  these  availed  nothing  without  the  new, 
the  divine  life  the  beginning  of  which  is  termed  a  new 
birth.  But  that  life  must  come  by  believing  in  Jesus. 
^^He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life:  and 
he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.''  Again  he  says,  '*He 
that  heareth  my  word  and  believeth  on  Him  that  sent  me, 
bath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemna- 
tion: but  is  passed  from  Death  unto  life.''  ''He  that 
believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life. "  *  *  I  am  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life."  ''Whosoever  liveth  and  believeth 
in  me  shall  never  die. ' '  In  all  of  these  passages  of  what 
can  he  be  speaking  but  of  that  spiritual  life  that  begins 
with  the  new  birth  and  makes  us  the  children  of  Godt 
And,  incidentally,  note  the  infinite  majesty  of  one  who 
can  use  such  words  and  make  them  good.  Note  that 
every  promise  of  this  life  is  conditioned  upon  belief  in 
Himself.  As  before  observed,  every  promise  of  salvation 
is  coupled  with  belief  in  him. 

And  this  leads  us  to  consider  what  we  must  believe 
concerning  him.  The  answer  is  found  in  his  own  words 
and  in  the  facts  of  history.  Jesus  says  to  the  Pharisees 
and  those  gathered  with  them,  "If  ye  believe  not  that  I 
am  He,"  that  is,  the  Messiah,  "ye  shall  die  in  your  sins." 
But  of  the  Messiah  it  was  written,  "His  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Ever- 
lasting Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  If  they  did  not 
believe  in  him  as  such,  they  did  not  believe  in  him  as  the 
Messiah.  But  they  did  not  believe  that  he  was  such,  and 
crucified  him  because  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  They 
accused  him  of  blasphemy  for  "making  himself  equal 
with  God,"  as  he  claimed  to  be,  while  they  believed  him 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    189 

to  be  a  mere  man.  Read  the  history  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  subsequent  dispersion  of  the  Jews  for 
evidence  as  to  whether  they  were  saved  in  this  world  or 
not.  None  of  those  who  believed  on  him  as  the  Christ 
were  involved  in  that  terrible  destruction,  for  believing 
in  him  and  admitting  his  claims,  they  believed  his  words 
concerning  the  coming  of  that  destruction  and  fled  to  a 
place  of  safety.  And  this  destruction  was,  evidently,  not 
of  a  mere  temporal  nature,  for  Jesus  told  them,  **  Whither 
I  go  ye  cannot  come.'*  And  note  his  denunciations  of 
those  classes.  Yet  they  believed  that  there  was  such  a 
man  as  Jesus,  they  believed  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph 
as  some  now  believe  in  his  merely  human  paternity. 
Many  could  not  do  otherwise  than  believe  that  he  was  a 
good  man,  and  the  only  bad  thing  any  of  them  could  find 
about  him  was  that  **he  deceiveth  the  people*'  in  trying 
to  convince  them  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  They  believed 
that  he  wrought  miracles  also.  We  read  that  after  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  ''Then  gathered  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  a  council,  and  said,  ** What  do  wet  for  this  man 
doeth  many  miracles.  If  we  let  him  alone  all  men  will 
believe  on  him."  (John  11:47,48.)  Instead  of  being 
convinced  by  the  raising  of  Lazarus  that  Jesus  was  what 
he  claimed  to  be,  they  **  consulted  that  they  might  put 
Ijazarus  also  to  death:  because  that  by  reason  of  him 
many  of  the  Jews  went  away  and  believed  on  Jesus." 
(John  12:10,11.)  None  of  them,  so  far  as  we  know,  ever 
denied  the  fact  of  his  miracles  nor  even  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  but,  with  reference  to  this  last,  they  did 
all  that  they  could  to  keep  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  from 
reaching  others,  for  when  the  Roman  guard  reported  the 
facts,  **they  gave  large  money  unto  the  soldiers,  saying 
**Say  ye,  his  disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  him  away 


190    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

while  we  slept,  and  if  this  come  to  the  governor's  ears, 
we  will  persuade  him  and  secure  you/'  (Mat.  28 :12,13.) 
Yes,  they  most  decidedly  believed  in  miracles.  They  were 
also  compelled  to  admit  that  others,  also,  wrought  them 
through  faith  in  the  name  of  Christ.  When  the  man 
lame  from  his  birth  was  healed  by  Peter  and  John,  and 
the  knowledge  of  that  fact  was  rapidly  spreading  and 
winning  adherents  to  the  cause  of  the  apostles,  these 
same  priests,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  the  religious  teachers, 
**  conferred  among  themselves,  saying.  What  shall  we  do 
to  these  men  ?  for  that  indeed  a  notable  miracle  hath  been 
done  by  them  is  manifest  to  all  them  that  dwell  in 
Jerusalem :  and  we  cannot  deny  it.  But  that  it  spread  no 
farther  among  the  people  let  us  straitly  threaten  them 
that  they  speak  henceforth  to  no  man  in  this  name.'' 
They  believed  many  things  concerning  Christ,  but  evi- 
dently their  belief  was  not  a  saving  faith  nor  a  belief 
that  would  insure  eternal  life. 

Not  only  did  men,  wicked  men,  believe  many  things 
concerning  him  but  demons  also  did  the  same.  We  read, 
*  *  There  met  him  two  possessed  with  devils  coming  out  of 
the  tombs,  exceeding  fierce  so  that  no  man  might  pass 
that  way.  And,  behold,  they  cried  out  saying.  What  have 
we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God  ? ' '  The  faith 
of  the  demons  went  farther  than  that  of  many  men,  but 
they  did  not  yield  a  willing  obedience  to  him  as  their  o^vn 
Lord.  James  says  (2:19),  Thou  believest  there  is  one 
God,  thou  doest  well,  the  devils  also  believe  and  tremble. ' ' 
Many,  now,  believe  that  there  is  one  God,  but  claim  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  in  no  sense  that  God. 

What,  then,  is  necessary?  When  Jesus  asked  his 
disciples  who  he  was,  Peter  answered,  **Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God."    Thomas  exclaimed 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    191 

**My  Lord  and  my  God/'  The  true  nature  of  Christ  was 
revealed  to  them.  **  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona: 
for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee  but  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  was  our  Savior's  declara- 
tion. 

That  is  the  faith  that  complies  with  the  condition,  **As 
many  as  received  him  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become 
the  sons  of  (Jod,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name." 

Simon  Peter  is  not  the  only  one  to  whom  the  Father 
makes  this  revelation.  He  makes  it  to  every  one  who  will 
voluntarily  take  the  right  attitude  of  will  concerning 
him.  And  this  revelation  can  come  in  no  other  way  for, 
**No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  And  this  explains  why  so  many  now  are  like 
the  scribes,  Pharisees  and  others  of  old.  They  do  not 
submit  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  the  nature 
of  Jesus.  He  is  Divine.  He  is  Lord  with  a  capital  L. 
He  can  impart  the  spiritual  life,  and  does  impart  it  to 
all  who  receive  him  and  believe  in  him  as  the  Messiah  as 
that  Messiah  was  described  in  the  prophecy.  To  such  he 
imparts  the  divine  life,  the  life  that  allies  men  to  God  and 
makes  them  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature.  They  thus 
become  the  children  of  God  because  they  are  born  of 
God.  They  are  the  children  of  Qod  in  an  entirely  differ- 
ent sense  than  that  used  so  often  of  late  with  reference 
to  all  persons. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  brotherhood  of  man.  There  is  a  great  truth  contained 
in  that  expression  inasmuch  as  that  all  should  treat  God 
as  one  should  treat  a  father  and  should  recognize  the 
claims  of  their  fellow  men  upon  them.  But  this  rather 
fictitious  relationship  is  by  no  means  to  be  confounded 
with    that    infinitely    higher    relationship    that    exists 


192    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

between  the  Father  and  those  who  have  been  '*born 
again, "  *  *  born  of  the  Spirit, ' ' '  ^  born  from  above, ' '  * '  born 
of  God,"  and  by  that  birth  have  become  the  children  of 
God.  To  such  God  is  a  father  because  He  has  imparted 
to  them  life,  an  entirely  different  kind  of  life,  from  that 
which  they  possessed  before. 

Those  who  have  been  born  of  God,  too,  have  an  entirely 
different  relationship  with  each  other  from  that  of 
humanity  in  general. 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  emphasized,  as  has  been 
before  stated,  that  this  life  is  a  new  creation.  *'If  any 
man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature. ' '  This  life  is  not 
a  development  of  some  other  and  lower  kind  of  life.  A 
new  kind  of  life  has  been  created  within  him,  or  im- 
parted to  him  direct. 

When  vegetable  life  appeared  upon  our  planet  it  was 
the  result  of  the  creation  of  that  kind  of  life.  That  life 
has  produced,  perpetuated  that  kind  of  life  and  only 
that  kind  of  life,  namely,  vegetable  life.  When  animal 
life  appeared,  it  was  the  result  of  the  creation  of  animal 
life.  Vegetable  life  did  not  beget  animal  life,  it  only 
begat  its  own  kind  of  life,  and  not  only  in  general  but  in 
particular. 

Algae  life  did  not  beget  oak  nor  cedar  nor  poplar  life 
It  begat  algae  life  and  has  continued  to  do  so  since  the 
first  dawn  of  life  upon  the  planet.  In  the  realm  of  animal 
life,  the  Eozon  life  did  not  beget  trilobite,  nor  ammonite 
nor  ganoid  life.  It  begat  and  perpetuated  its  own  kind 
of  life  and  has  begotten  that  kind  only,  since  the  first 
trace  of  animal  life  appeared  on  earth. 

The  same  law  prevails  in  the  spiritual  world.  */ Natural 
law  in  the  Spiritual  World''  prevails.  Science  as  well 
as  religion  teaches  this  truth.    As  Prof.  Drummond  well 


OenesiS)  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    193 

says,  *'No  organic  change,  no  modification  of  environ- 
ment, no  mental  energy,  no  moral  effort,  no  evolution  of 
character,  no  progress  of  civilization  can  endow  any 
single  human  soul  with  the  attribute  of  spiritual  life. 
The  Spiritual  world  is  guarded  from  the  world  next 
beneath  it  by  a  law  of  Biogenesis — *  except  a  man  be 
bom  again  •  •  •  •  except  a  man  be  bom  of  water 
and  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. '  ' ' 

Again  the  same  writer  observes,  **  there  is  no  Spon- 
taneous Generation  in  religion  any  more  than  in  nature. 
Christ  is  the  source  of  life  in  the  Spiritual  World,  and 
"He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life  and  he  that  hath  not 
the  Son,''  whatever  else  he  may  have,  **hath  not  life." 
Again  he  says,  '^It  is  clear  that  a  remarkable  harmony 
exists  here  between  the  Organic  World  as  arranged  by 
Science  and  the  Spiritual  World  as  arranged  by  Scrip- 
ture. We  find  one  great  law  guarding  the  thresholds 
of  both  worlds,  securing  that  entrance  from  a  lower 
sphere  shall  only  take  place  by  a  distinct  regenerating 
act,  and  that  emanating  from  the  world  next  in  order 
above  it. 

There  are  not  two  laws  of  Biogenesis,  one  for  the 
natural,  the  other  for  the  Spiritual  One  law  is  for 
both.'' 

The  spiritual  kingdom  is  as  distinct  from  the  animal 
kingdom  as  that  is  from  the  vegetable,  or  as  the  vegetable 
is  from  the  mineral  kingdom.  Each  has  its  beginning  in 
a  new  creation.  The  Christian  is  one  in  whom  this  new 
kind  of  life  has  been  created,  and  the  Christian  religion 
is  a  system  of  religion  based  upon  that  fact. 

There  is  another  remarkable  harmony,  also,  between 
these  two  worlds.  Note  that  as  in  the  material  world  so 
in  the  spiritual  the  development  of  life  is  according  to 


194    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

its  life  principle.  In  tne  material  universe  every  living 
thing  follows  that  law.  There  are  today  billions  of 
protoplasmic  cells  so  nearly  alike  that,  as  science  tells  us, 
no  microscopic  examination,  no  chemical  tests  can  detect 
any  difference  between  them,  and  yet  one  developing  ac- 
cording to  its  life  principle  in  a  few  days  will  become  a 
blade  of  grass,  another  may  require  thousands  of  year? 
to  mature  into  a  giant  Sequoia. 

In  the  animal  kingdom,  one  may  at  maturity  become 
an  oyster,  another  an  elephant.  Each  developes  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  life  principle  that  animates  it. 

So  when  the  spirit  of  man  becomes  possessed  of  that 
life  principle  that  is  called  by  our  Lord  ** Eternal  life,'' 
that  life  that  comes  when  one  is  **born  of  God,''  the 
spirit  will  develop  according  to  that  life  principle,  but 
it  will  not  come  to  its  maturity  in  a  day  nor  in  a  month 
nor  a  year.  It  may  require  the  ** eternal  years"  for  its 
maturity  into  Qodlikeness.  Those  who  so  thoughtlessly 
criticise  the  imperfections  of  Christians  fail  to  recognize 
this  fact.  But  even  in  this  life  the  character  may  mature 
sufficiently  to  bear  ** Fruit  unto  holiness." 

**The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffer- 
ing, gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance." 
(Gal.  5:22.) 

These  qualities  are  not  the  result  of  heathen  culture,  for 
the  fruits  of  such  culture  are  the  direct  opposite  of  these. 
But  the  difference  between  those  who  have  this  life  and 
those  who  do  not  have  it  is  not  so  marked  in  those  lands, 
as  Europe  and  America,  in  which  the  genius  of  Chris- 
tianity has  shed  its  blessings  upon  all ;  like  the  sun  that 
rises  upon  the  evil  and  the  good,  or  the  rain  that  descends 
equally  upon  the  just  and  upon  the  unjust.    The  differ- 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    195 

ence  is  more  marked  in  those  regions  where  Christ  and  his 
gospel  are  unknown. 

When,  by  receiving  Jesus  the  Christ  as  the  Son  of 
God,  an  African  has  received  this  new  life  from  God, 
he  is  changed  from  a  cruel,  blood-thirsty  monster  in 
human  shape  into  a  man,  humble,  teachable  and  yet 
virile,  sitting  at  the  feet  of  his  missionary  teacher  study- 
ing the  life  of  his  Master.  Through  faith  in  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah,  savages,  miserable  creatures  who  through 
fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage, 
have  received  this  life  and  by  its  animating  principle 
have  unhesitatingly  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  faith, 
that  they  might  be  the  means  of  imparting  the  same 
life  to  others.  There  is  not  a  spot  on  earth,  and  never 
has  been  a  spot,  so  dark,  so  savage,  so  steeped  in  heathen- 
ism that  it  has  not  been  counted  a  joy  for  some  of  Christ's 
children  to  make  it  their  home  and  their  grave,  if  need 
be,  if  by  that  means  they  might  advance  the  cause  of 
their  Redeemer.  Such  conduct  is  the  outgoing  of  the 
life  within  which  has  been  imparted  to  them  by  Him 
who  laid  down  His  life  for  us.  It  is  evidence  that 
the  life  that  inspires  them  is  the  offspring  of  God  and 
that  they  are,  indeed,  the  children  of  God. 

Nations  are  aggregates  of  individuals.  What  the  indi- 
viduals are  the  nation  is.  As  a  nation  becomes  infused 
with  the  divine  element  in  the  lives  of  its  truly  Christian 
citizens,  the  evils  resulting  from  selfishness  and  sin 
gradually  slough  off;  and  so  we  have  the  enlightened 
nations  of  today  as  compared  with  the  barbarism  that 
once  prevailed.  Vice  and  crime  indeed  abound,  but  they 
prevail  in  individual  lives  that  have  not  been  touched  by 
the  Divine  life.  These  vices  and  crimes  are  hideous  and 
in  many  instances  surpass  those  of  darker  lands  because 


196    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

those  who  commit  them  sin  against  greater  light  and  are 
resisting  stronger  influences  for  good  than  have  ever 
before  existed.  But  in  spite  of  this  the  influence  of  lives 
that  have  been  touched  by  the  Divine  life  has  trans- 
formed the  world  of  Caesar  into  the  world  of  today,  and 
is  working  transformations  more  rapidly  now  than  ever 
before  in  the  history  of  the  human  race. 

The  kind  of  life  that  the  caterpiller  has  causes  it  in 
time  to  slough  off  its  hairy  outer  covering  and  all  of 
those  organs  that  pertain  only  to  its  lower  form  of  life 
and  take  on  new  forms  more  beautiful  and  better  adapted 
to  higher  external  conditions.  So  the  nations  have  been 
sloughing  off  those  hideous  excrescences  of  human  life, 
gladiatorial  shows,  suttee,  infanticide,  slavery,  human 
sacrifices,  cannibalism,  feudal  wars,  massacres  of  pri- 
soners taken  in  war,  mitigating  the  horrors  of  war  and 
so  on. 

Christianity  builds  hospitals  for  the  sick,  almshouses 
for  the  poor,  supplies  the  destitute,  pities  the  unfortu- 
nate, relieves  the  distressed. 

It  changes  laws  and  remodels  governments  and  is  doing 
this  now  with  greater  rapidity  than  ever  before.  We  need 
only  to  point  to  the  islands  of  the  seas,  to  Japan,  to 
China,  to  Persia,  to  Turkey. 

But  these  results  in  the  physical  world  only  illustrate 
that  power  which  finds  its  more  perfect  sphere  of  activity 
in  the  realm  of  the  spirit  where  it  is  not  limited  by  time 
or  space  or  any  other  limitation  of  material  conditions. 

It  is  the  life  of  God  in  man  and  that  unites  him  to  God 
by  the  ties  of  a  spiritual  consanguinity. 

Christ  came  to  impart  that  life. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
Concluding  Words 

FOR  a  number  of  years  a  conflict  has  been  going 
on  in  the  Christian  world  over  matters  pertain- 
ing to  religion.  Heretofore  the  lines  have  not 
been  sharply  drawn  so  that  the  contending  hosts 
were  fairly  drawn  up  on  opposite  sides  with  the  issues 
distinctly  outlined  between  them.  But  this  seems  to  be  no 
longer  the  case,  particularly  with  the  leaders  of  the  con- 
tending forces.  There  are  hosts  of  people  between  the 
two  extremes  of  thought  and  hardly  knowing  which  way 
to  turn.  On  one  side  there  is  a  man-made  Bible,  a  reli- 
gion of  evolution,  an  egocentric  theology,  and  salvation 
by  culture.  On  the  other  side  is  a  God-inspired  Bible 
that  is  authoritative  for  instruction  and  conduct,  a 
Christo-centric  theology,  a  religion  that  is  based  solidly 
upon  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  salvation  by  the  credo, 
**I  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ":  in  other  words  sal- 
vation by  faith  as  the  power  by  which  we  appropriate  to 
ourselves  the  new,  the  divine,  the  eternal  life  that  He 
has  to  give  us.  This  latter  is  the  religious  system  that 
conquered  the  world  in  the  first  Christian  century.  There 
is  no  hope  for  its  conquest  in  the  twentieth  except  by  the 
same  gospel,  which  is  the  only  gospel  of  Christ. 

Men  ask  what  shall  be  the  preaching  for  an  age  of 
doubt  t  The  answer  would  be,  the  preaching  that  admits 
no  doubt  about  the  eternal  verities  of  the  Christian  faith. 
There  must  be  no  evasions  of  the  truth  that  men  are  dead 
in  sin,  and  can  be  made  alive  only  by  the  power  of  the 
One  who  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead. 

What  shall  be  the  preaching  for  the  twentieth  cen- 

197 


198    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

tury?  The  preaching  that  conquered  the  world  in  the 
first.  It  only  can  meet  the  facts  in  the  world  that  are  as 
hard  now  as  they  were  then.  It  is,  of  course,  not  to  be 
inferred  that  discretion  is  not  to  be  used  in  presenting 
the  truth.  There  are  many  phases  of  the  true  gospel, 
many  truths  in  the  one  great  truth.  The  phase  of  truth 
presented  must  be  adapted  to  the  people  appealed  to. 
Paul  says,  **  Knowing,  therefore,  the  terror  of  the  Lord 
we  persuade  men.''  But  he  could  also  say,  **I  have  not 
shunned  to  declare  unto  you  all  the  counsel  of  God. ' ' 

What  shall  be  the  preaching  in  view  of  the  intel- 
lectual activity  of  the  age?  The  preaching  of  the  same 
truths,  coupled  perhaps  with  intellectuality  enough  to 
grasp  the  great  facts  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  and  enough  to  see  that  those  chapters  are  the 
records  of  facts.  If  not  the  record  of  facts,  the  biblical 
cosmogony  is,  at  least,  in  harmony  with  all  the  advances 
in  astronomical  science  for  the  last  hundred  years.  Its 
biogenesis  absolutely  corresponds  with  the  records  in  the 
rocks.  We  need  no  theories  of  neo-creationism.  The  old 
creationism  meets  all  of  the  conditions. 

Archaeology,  so  far  as  it  touches  the  Bible,  confirms 
its  historicity.  The  Jewish  race  is  a  monument  to  that 
historicity.  The  Bible  as  it  is,  without  human  emenda- 
tions or  corrections,  is  a  record  of  facts  not  only  in  cos- 
mogony and  biogenesis  but  of  facts  in  human  experience, 
and  of  eternal  principles  that  determine  that  experience. 

It  has  been  said  that  *'so  long  as  the  majority  of  theo- 
logians treat  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  oracles,  so  long  will 
it  appear  as  a  book  of  fables  to  the  majority  of  the 
educated  laity.''  Whether  this  is  true  or  not  depends 
upon  the  amount  and  kind  of  education  *'the  educated 
laity"  have,  and  the  spirit  with  which  that  education 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    199 

was  pursued.  A  most  deplorable  feature  of  the  present 
time  is  the  spirit  of  exultant  joy,  the  perfect  satisfaction, 
the  supreme  complacency  that  we  know  so  much,  rather 
than  of  humility  that  we  know  so  little.  But  the  highest 
reaches  of  human  intellect  as  yet  have  been  but  as  a 
balloon  journey  toward  the  stars. 

There  may  be  a  kind  of  education  that  would  lead  men 
to  despise  the  oracles  of  God,  but  in  doing  so  it  places 
human  conceit  above  Divine  wisdom.  The  Bible,  to  a 
great  extent,  gives  an  account  of  its  own  origin,  and  the 
ages  have  substantiated  that  account.  The  martyr 
Stephen  called  the  Mosaic  law,  at  least,  the  oracles  of 
God  delivered  to  Moses.  Paul,  Peter,  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  others  of  the  inspired  writers 
refer  to  the  books  of  the  Bible  as  the  oracles  of  God.  The 
old  prophets  spoke  of  the  oracles  of  (Jod  and  subsequent 
events  have  proven  their  words  to  have  been  such.  So 
long  as  men  substitute  their  own  imaginings  for  the 
truths  of  (Jod,  so  long  will  they  confuse  the  oracles  of 
God  with  those  of  Delphi  or  some  other  heathen  shrine. 
They  do  not  belong  in  that  category.  Paul  could  say  in 
his  time,  **We  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a 
stumbling  block,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness;  but  to 
them  that  are  called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the 
power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God. ' '    (I  Cor.  1 :23,24. ) 

There  are,  essentially,  the  same  classes  now.  The  in- 
telligent layman  need  not  despise  those  oracles.  The  in- 
telligent preacher  need  not  and  does  not  stultify  himself 
in  preaching  the  same  facts  that  Paul  preached,  the 
facts  of  a  personal  God,  a  God  creating,  a  God  revealing 
himself  in  the  scriptures  of  truth,  a  God  redeeming,  a 
God  present  and  guiding,  and  a  new  life  created  in  those 
who  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.    The  stultifying 


200     Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

is  on  the  part  of  those  in  the  church,  who,  like  wolves  in 
sheep's  clothing,  are  covertly  and  insidiously  subvert- 
ing the  truths  they  are  paid  to  advocate.  The  call  to-day 
is  the  call  of  Moses  at  Sinai,  of  Elijah  at  Mount  Carmel. 


APPENDIX 
Notes  to  Chapter  I 

(a)  This  rapid  contraction  would  necessarily  pro- 
duce a  spiral  nebula.  For  a  discussion  of  this  subject 
and  for  the  proof  of  several  positions  I  have  taken  in 
this  article,  see  Prof.  Moulton's  article,  Evolution  of  the 
Solar  System,  in  the  Astrophysical  Journal  for  October, 
1905. 

(b)  With  reference  to  these  nebular  densities  note  the 
following  from  the  Ency.  Brit.,  Art.  Geology.  **The 
fact  of  condensing  around  centers,  however,  indicates  at 
least  differences  in  densities  throughout  the  nebulous 
mass."  See  also  the  article  of  Prof.  Moulton  referred  to 
above. 

(c)  This  action  can  be  better  understood  by  show- 
ing it  to  be  according  to  the  law  of  pendulum  vibration. 

The  force  that  would  be  exerted  upon  a  ball  falling 
through  the  earth  would  be  in  proportion  to  the  distance 
yet  to  be  traversed.  The  same  is  true  of  the  pendulum. 
In  figure  2  place  the  pendulum  ball  at  any  point  as 
at  e.  A  part  of  the  force  of  gravity  acting  along  the  line 
c  e  would  be  expended  in  the  pull  upon  the  pendulum 
rod.  The  remainder  would  be  expended  in  urging  it 
along  the  tangent  f  g.  This  latter  is  as  the  angle  a  e  c. 
But  this  is  =  to  the  angle  b  a  e,  and  this  is  the  measure 
of  the  distance  yet  to  be  passed  through,  the  same  as 
that  of  the  body  falling  through  the  earth. 

(d)  About  eight  months  after  this  statement  about 
the  Great  Red  Spot  was  written,  the  following  item  wa«i 
going  the  round  of  the  papers. 

80X 


FIQURI  1 


FIGURE  2 


202 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    203 
Something  Hovering  Over  Jupiter 

'*A  discovery  of  considerable  importance  in  astrono- 
mical circles  has  recently  been  made  which  is  arousing 
much  interest  among  astronomers,"  say^  the  Toronto 
Olobe.  *'The  planet  Jupiter  is  the  body  upon  which  the 
discovery  has  been  made.  Several  peculiar  pyramid- 
shaped  spots  have  been  observed  on  Jupiter,  and  the 
astronomers  who  have  been  watching  them  have  observed 
that,  as  they  travel  with  great  velocity  toward  the  object 
known  to  astronomers  as  the  Great  Red  Spot,  they  disap- 
pear and  reappear  at  the  other  side  of  the  Great  Red 
Spot.  This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  (heat  Red  Spot 
is  elevated,  something  which  was  not  known  before,'^ 

This  seems  to  completely  confirm  the  author  ^s  state- 
ment. 

(e)  The  Ency,  Brit,,  article  Geology,  mentions 
three  theories  as  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  earth. 
First,  solid  crust,  molten  interior,  2d,  with  the  exception 
of  local  vesicular  spaces,  it  is  all  solid,  3d,  solid  interior 
and  exterior  with  a  layer  of  molten  matter  between. 

With  regard  to  internal  fluidity  Mr.  Hopkins  of  Cam- 
bridge, (in  1839)  calculated  that  the  phenomena  of  pre- 
cession and  nutation  could  not  possibly  be  as  they  are  if 
the  planet  consisted  of  a  central  ocean  of  molten  rock 
surrounded  by  a  crust  20  or  30  miles  thick,  and  that  the 
least  possible  thickness  of  crust  consistent  with  the  ex- 
isting conditions  or  movements  was  from  800  to  1000 
miles. 

Sir  William  Thomson,  the  late  Lord  Kelvin,  arrived  in- 
dependently at  the  conclusion  that  the  interior  of  the 
earth  must  be  solid.  He  estimated  that  the  tide-produc- 
ing force  of  the  moon  and  sun  exerts  such  a  strain  upon 


204    Oenetis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

the  substance  of  the  globe  that  it  seems  in  the  highest 
degree  impossible  that  the  planet  could  maintain  its 
shape  as  it  does,  unless  the  supposed  crust  were  at  least 
2,000  or  2,500  miles  in  thickness. 

His  conclusion  is  that  the  globe  as  a  whole  must  be 
of  the  tenacity  of  glass  or  steel  to  resist  these  forces. 
In  his  own  words  his  conclusion  is  that  the  mass  of  the 
earth,  **is  on  the  whole  more  rigid  than  a  continuous 
solid  globe  of  glass  of  the  same  diameter." 

This  is  pretty  good  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  my 
own  conclusion,  arrived  at  simply  by  processes  of  reason, 

(f)  With  regard  to  these  transient  bursts  of  light 
note  the  words  of  the  scientist,  Dr.  J.  R.  Meyer :  '  *  The 
transient  appearance  of  stars  which  in  some  cases,  like 
the  celebrated  star  of  Tycho  Brahe,  have  at  first  an  ex- 
traordinary degree  of  brilliance,  may  satisfactorily  be 
explained  by  assuming  the  falling  together  of  previously 
invisible  double  stars.''  (Correlation  and  Conservation 
of  Forces,  page  355.) 

(g)  In  speaking  of  species  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
the  term  is  a  rather  variable  one.  It  is  admitted  that 
some  of  the  so-called  species  may  have  originated  from 
some  other  so-called  species.  The  statement  is  simply 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  such  has  been  the  case. 

However  hard  it  may  be  to  conceive  that  each  one  of 
the  species,  for  instance,  of  the  700  of  ganoids  is  an 
original  creation,  and  that  the  creation  form  is  the  ter- 
minal one,  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  has  been  a 
single  case  of  transmutation.  However,  it  may  be  that 
future  discoveries  may  show  that  the  term  *' variety" 
should  be  used  where  the  term  ** species"  is  now  em- 
ployed. 

(h)     The  ''slimy  ooze"  of  Prof.  Huxley,  which  he 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    205 

thought  was  endued  with  power  to  produce  all  kinds  of 
life  either  directly  or  indirectly,  was  finally  discovered 
to  be  but  a  precipitate  that  could  be  produced  by  simply 
mixing  alcohol  with  sea  water. 

(i)     See  E.  Ray  Lankester  on  Degeneration. 

EXCURSUS  I 

Closely  connected  with  this  subject  of  nebular  densities 
starting  off  on  orbits  of  their  own,  is  a  consideration  of 
the  sesquiplicate  ratio  of  times  and  distances  of  Planets 
or  '* Kepler's  Third  Law." 

The  sesquiplicate  ratio  of  the  times  and  distances  of 
the  planets  is  necessary  from  the  fact  that  the  force  of 
gravitation  varies  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  and  that 
with  falling  bodies  the  distance  is  as  the  square  of  the 
time.  To  demonstrate  the  law  a  few  principles  must  be 
admitted  as  axiomatic. 

Ist.  A  body  moving  in  a  circle  deviates  from  its 
tangent  according  to  the  law  of  falling  bodies. 

2d.  Any  power  of  the  ratio  of  two  or  more  numbers 
is  the  ratio  of  the  same  power  of  those  numbers. 

3d.  The  force  of  gravitation  varies  as  the  square  of 
the  distance.  In  fig.  2  (page  201)  let  S  represent  the  posi- 
tion oftion  of  the  sun,  M  the  position  of  one  planet  and  A 
that  of  a  planet  supposed  for  convenience  to  be  just  twice 
as  far  from  the  sun.  The  ratio  (r)  of  distances  would  then 
be  2.  Let  d=distance  of  M  from  the  sun  and  D=that 
of  A  from  the  sun.  Let  t=the  time  for  M  to  pass  from 
M  to  P  and  T=:the  time  for  A  to  pass  from  A  to  C  or 
through  J4  of  i^  orbit. 

As  attraction  varies  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  it  is 
plain  that  the  sun  exerts  but  ^  of  the  power  at  A  that 


206    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

it  does  at  M  and  hence  a  body  at  A  would  fall,  or  be 
drawn  from  its  tangent,  only  J4  ^s  far  in  a  given  time 
as  one  at  M.  At  the  same  time  it  has  twice  as  far  to  go 
to  complete  the  J4  ^^  its  orbit  that  M  has.  So,  if  there 
were  no  other  consideration,  that  is,  if  the  distance  fallen 
through  were  as  the  time  we  should  have  the  proportion 
t  :  T  :  :  1  :  r3.  But  the  distance  varies  as  the  square 
of  the  time,  so  that  instead  of  simply  t  and  T  we  have  t2 
T2  and  the  proportion  would  become  t2  :  T2  :  :  1  : 
r3,  where  t2=:'H  square"  and  r3=:'*r  cube."  This  is 
by  far  the  most  convenient  formula  to  apply  in  prac- 
tice. Take  for  example  the  time  and  distance  of  the 
earth  as  a  standard  and  we  have  only  to  multiply  the 
square  of  its  time  by  the  cube  of  the  ratio  of  distances 
and  we  have  the  square  of  the  time  of  any  other  planet. 

To  obtain  the  ordinary  formula  of  Kepler's  Third  Law 
we  have  only  to  remember  the  second  principle  stated 
above  and  for  1  :  r3  substitute  the  numbers  themselves 
and  we  have  t2  :  T2  :  :  d3  :  D3.  What  is  true  of  one 
ratio  is  true  of  any  ratio  and  what  is  true  for  J4  of  the 
orbit  is  true  for  the  whole,  so  that  the  ratio  of  the  times 
and  distances  of  the  planets  is  necessarily  sesquiplicate. 

It  is  sometimes  stated  that  the  law  is  not  quite  true. 
It  is,  however,  necessarily  and  absolutely  true  of  itself, 
and  would  appear  to  be  so  if  there  were  no  disturbing 
circumstances.  If,  for  example,  the  solar  system  were 
entirely  isolated  from  other  stellar  bodies  so  as  to  be 
undisturbed  by  them,  the  planets  all  of  the  same  size 
moving  through  a  nonresisting  medium  and  in  circular 
orbits,  or  orbits  of  the  same  degree  of  eccentricity,  there 
could  be  no  possibility  of  variation  from  the  harmonic 
law. 

In  seeking  the  causes  of  variation  from  that  law  th^ 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    207 

writer  found  what  he  believes  to  be  a  true  law  and  the 
principal  cause  of  variation  from  the  harmonic  law. 
Briefly  stated  it  is  this :  A  planet  moving  in  an  elliptical 
orbit  has  a  longer  year  than  one  at  the  same  mean  dis- 
tance would  have  moving  in  a  circular  orhit,  or  the 
greater  the  ellipticity  the  longer  the  year  in  proportion 
to  its  mean  distance. 

It  seems  as  if  this  must  appear  from  the  following 
reasoning.  In  a  circular  orbit  the  mean  distance  is 
simply  one  radius, — r,  or  for  a  convenience  of  com 

4r 
parison  —    But  suppose  a  circle  of  the  same  size  or  cir- 

4 
cumference  to  be  depressed  at  two  of  its  sides  so  as  to 
have  a  major  and  a  minor  axis.  The  major  axis  does 
not  lengthen  as  much  as  the  minor  axis  shortens,  for 
when  the  minor  axis  becomes  zero  the  major  axis  has 
become  only  V^  of  the  original  circumference  and  the 

4r  n  T 

original     —     becomes       2       or     —  Clearing  of 

4  4 

4 
fractions  the  4r  of  the  circle  becomes  ^  r  when  the  minor 
axis  has  disappeared.  But  r  does  not  equal  4  but  only 
3.1416.  The  limit  of  possible  variation  then  is  between 
4  and  3.1416.  To  maintain,  then,  the  same  mean  distance 
from  the  sun,  the  elliptical  orbit  must  be  lengthened  as 
eccentricity  increases  and  as  in  a  given  time  and  at  a 
given  distance  the  sun  can  produce  only  a  given  effect, 
it  would  seem  as  if  it  must  take  longer  to  carry  a  planet 
around  the  longer  elliptical  orbit  than  around  the  shorter 
circular  one  of  the  same  mean  distance. 


208    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

The  writer  of  this  paper  arrived  at  this  conclusion 
without  knowing  whether  the  years  of  the  several  plan- 
ets were  longer  or  shorter  than  required  by  the  harmonic 
law.  He  tried  to  ascertain  these  facts  by  correspon- 
dence, but  failing  in  this,  he  applied  himself  to  the  task, 
using  Kepler's  full  formula  and  confirming  some  of  the 
results  by  using  his  own  shorter  one  (i.  e.,  t2  :  T2  :  : 
1  :  r3.)  The  results  surprised  and  gratified  him  by  con- 
firming his  views  in  every  particular.  But  before  speak- 
ing of  these  results  we  must  refer  for  a  moment  to  the 
cause  commonly  attributed  to  account  for  the  variation, 
viz,  the  size  of  the  planets.  This  will  require  but  a 
few  words  as  it  is  treated  in  recent  text  books  on  astro- 
nomy. But  the  only  possible  result  of  increasing  size 
would  be  to  shorten  the  year.  For  instance,  the  actual 
year  of  Jupiter  is  2.067  days  shorter  than  it  would  be 
if  it  were  a  mere  particle.  The  earth's  is  47.8  seconds 
shorter. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  taking  the  time  and  distance 
of  the  earth  as  a  standard  of  comparison,  all  planets 
larger  than  the  earth  should  have  a  shorter  year  than 
that  required  by  the  harmonic  law,  and  from  the  preced- 
ing conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  ellipticity,  all  planets 
whose  orbits  are  more  elliptical  than  the  earth's  should 
have  a  longer  year  than  required  by  the  harmonic  law. 
Which  exerts  the  controlling  influence  can  be  learned  by 
calculation.  Unless  the  writer  of  this  paper  is  very  much 
mistaken  in  his  own  calculations  and  at  the  same  time 
fails  to  understand  Newton's  application  of  the  law,  ec- 
centricity of  orbit  exerts  the  controlling  influence,  for 
without  exception  all  the  planets  whose  orbits  are  more 
eccentric  than  that  of  the  earth  have  longer  years  than 
required  by  the  harmonic  law  when  the  time  and  distance 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    209 

of  the  earth  are  taken  as  the  standard.  The  two  whose 
orbits  are  less  eccentric  have  shorter  years  than  so  re- 
quired. 

For  convenience  of  present  investigation  the  following 
table  is  placed  before  the  reader.  It  contains  calculations 
made  by  the  author  four  or  five  years  ago  with  one  or 
two  corrections  made  recently: 


PlHMt 

Mm. 

BeMntHcHy 

%^.^£r 

«isr.:t]^5:^^' 

Mercury _ 

0,1183 

.205618 

7744 

7737 

Venus 

0.8832 

.006833 

50445 

60583 

Earth 

1.0000 

.016770 

Standard 

Mars  

0.1324 

.093262 

471969 

470543 

Jupiter 

338.0342 

.048239 

18771293 

18713900 

Saturn 

101.0637 

.055996 

115757081 

115511778 

Ur    

14.7889 

.046577 

930692169 

885500000 

Nap. 

24.6483 

.008719 

3615256224 

3812000000 

The  first  two  columns  (mass  and  eccentricity)  are 
taken  from  Snell's  Astronomy  and  differ  a  little  from 
those  given  by  Prof.  Young  in  his  astronomy,  but  the 
difference  is  too  small  to  affect  the  general  result. 

About  four  years  after  making  the  above  calculations 
the  author  had  occasion  to  consult  Newton's  Principia 
and  from  that  takes,  though  in  a  different  form,  the  fol- 
lowing table.  Mean  distances  of  the  planets  and  of  the 
earth  from  the  sun  (omitting  the  three  right  hand  fig- 
ures) according  to — 


Mercury  — 

Venus  

Earth 

Mars  - 

Jupiter  

Saturn  


Harmonic 

Kepler 

Bullialdus 

law 

38806 

38585 

38710 

72400 

72398 

72333 

100000 

100000 

100000 

152350 

152350 

152369 

519650 

522520 

520096 

951000 

954198 

954006 

Consulting  the  first  table  we  see  that  in  every  instance 
where  the  eccentricity  is  greater  than  that  of  the  earth's 


210    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

orbit,  the  actual  year  is  longer  than  required  by  the  H.  L. 
In  the  two  instances  (Venus  and  Neptune)  where  the 
eccentricity  is  less  than  that  of  the  earth's  orbit,  the 
actual  year  is  shorter  than  is  so  required. 

With  regard  to  the  second — ^Newton's — table,  Uranus 
and  Neptune  were  unknown  to  Newton  and,  of  course, 
they  are  not  mentioned.  Then,  too,  instead  of  computing 
the  time  as  required  by  the  H.  L.,  as  the  present  writer 
did,  he  computed  the  distance  as  required  by  the  actual 
time,  and,  taking  the  distance  as  given  by  Bullialdus, 
which  is  more  nearly  correct  for  Mercury,  and  that 
given  by  Kepler,  or  both,  for  the  others,  in  every  instance 
his  conclusions  coincide  with  those  in  the  first  table.  For 
instance,  the  distance  of  Mercury  calculated  from  its 
actual  year  is  greater  than  its  actual  distance,  showing 
that  its  actual  year  is  longer  than  required  by  the  H.  L. 
In  the  case  of  Venus  the  distance  as  computed  from  its 
actual  year  is  less  than  the  actual  distance,  showing  that 
its  actual  year  is  less  or  shorter  than  required  by  the 
H.  L.  As  far  as  Newton's  table  goes  it  sustains  in  every 
particular  the  correctness  of  the  conclusions  recorded  in 
the  first  table  and  both  confirm  the  inference  before 
stated,  i,  e.,  taking  the  time  and  distance  of  the  earth  as 
a  standard  of  comparison  every  planet  whose  orbit  is 
more  eccentric  than  the  earth's  has  a  longer  year  than  is 
required  by  the  H.  L,  Those  whose  orbits  are  less  eccen- 
tric have  shorter  years  than  so  required. 

Of  course  the  time  and  distance  of  any  other  planet 
could  be  taken  as  the  standard  without  affecting  the 
principles  involved. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  the  exact  effect 
of  eccentricity  can  be  ascertained  by  sufficient  accuracy 
of  computation.     The  author's  calculations  were  made 


Oenesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    211 

for  general  results  or  for  finding  the  general  principle, 
and  decimals  were  omitted,  which  might  be  required  for 
accurate  results. 

But  it  would  require  only  the  fundamental  rules  of 
arithmetic  with  that  for  square  root  for  such  computa- 
tions. First  ascertain  the  effect  of  size.  (See  Art.  436 
and  417,  Young's  General  Astronomy ,  Ed.  of  1898.) 
For  instance,  Jupiter's  year  is  a  trifle  over  2  days  shorter 
than  if  it  were  a  mere  particle.  The  earth's  is  47.8 
seconds.  These  show  the  effects  of  sizes.  Carry  on  the 
computations  for  the  other  planets,  then  ascertain  the 
exact  difference  between  the  actual  periods  of  the  planets 
and  those  required  by  the  H.  L.  Add  or  subtract  as  the 
case  requires  and  the  result  will  be  the  effect  of  eccen- 
tricity of  orbit. 

A  very  much  easier  way,  however,  to  calculate  the 
effect  of  ellipticity  is  to  calculate  it  from  the  difference 
between  the  actual  distance  and  that  as  calculated  by 
the  harmonic  law. 

For  instance,  from  Newton's  table  above  take  the 
actual  distance  of  Saturn,  as  given  by  Kepler,  and  sub- 
tract this  from  the  distance  as  Newton  calculated  it  by 
the  H.  L.  and  we  have  954,006,000—951,000,000= 
3,006,000  miles  difference  in  distance.  Multiply  this  by 
3.1416  and  we  have  9,443,650  miles  difference  in  length 
of  orbit.  Divide  this  by  its  orbital  velocity  (6  miles  per 
second)  and  the  result  is  that  Saturn's  year  is,  or  would 
be  if  Newton's  data  were  correct,  about  18  days  longer 
than  it  would  have  been  if  its  eccentricity  had  been  only 
equal  to  that  of  the  earth.  Of  course  the  distances  of 
the  planet?  had  not  been  ascertained  in  Newton's  time 
so  accurately  as  at  present,  but  the  above  is  designed  to 


212    Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

illustrate  the  method  and,  approximately,  the  effect  of 
eccentricity  in  one  instance. 

Any  one  who  chooses  can  carry  out  this  method,  but 
for  the  present,  at  least,  the  author  leaves  the  subject 
with  these  general  results,  and  the  suggestion  before  made 
that  the  effect  of  eccentricity  is  manifested  only  as  the 
orbits  have  different  degrees  of  eccentricity. 

EXCURSUS  n 

A  few  thoughts  in  connection  with  the  condition  of 
the  sun  not  expressed  elsewhere  may  be  admitted  here. 

Some  astronomers  have  suggested  that  the  heat  of  th^ 
sun  may  be  maintained  by  the  continuous  precipitation 
of  matter  upon  its  surface.  A  sufficient  answer  to  that 
view  is  that  any  increment  to  the  sun's  mass  would  oc- 
casion a  shortening  of  the  years  of  all  of  the  planets. 
For  example,  an  accretion  of  ^  of  its  own  mass  would 
shorten  the  year  of  Jupiter  by  more  than  a  terrestrial 
day  while  the  variation  of  a  few  seconds  would  be  notic- 
able.    Such  a  theory  is  not  tenable. 

Again,  one  astronomer  asserts  that  the  sun's  contrac- 
tion of  300  feet  per  year  would  supply  all  of  the  heat  lost 
by  radiation.  But  first,  this  view  presupposes  an  ex- 
ternal force  acting  upon  the  sun  from  without,  squeezing 
the  heat  out  as  one  would  squeeze  water  from  a  sponge, 
while  the  fact  is  that  if  there  is  any  contraction  at  all  it 
is  the  result  and  not  the  cause  of  a  loss  of  heat. 

Again  the  amount  of  contraction  would  depend  upon 
the  nature  of  the  sun's  substance  and  its  capacity  for 
heat  or  specific  heat.  If,  with  the  specific  heat  of  water 
it  would  contract  300  feet,  with  that  of  lead  or  bismuth 
it  would  have  to  contract  9,000  feet,  or  at  least  it  would 


Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion    213 

have  to  reduce  its  temperature  30  and  more  times  as 
much  as  it  would  were  it  of  the  specific  heat  of  water. 

But  whether  it  would  shrink  at  all  or  not  as  it  gives 
out  heat  depends  upon  the  nature  of  its  substance. 
Water  expands  in  cooling  from  39  degrees  to  32  and  con- 
tinues to  expand  as  it  is  converted  into  ice.  In  the  same 
way  bismuth  expands  through  the  whole  process  of  cool- 
ing- 
It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  sun's 
heat  remains  constant  from  age  to  age,  but  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  the  sun  is  not  cooling  off  so  rapidly 
as  it  would  by  radiation  if  there  were  no  source  of  supply 
of  heat. 

One  of  these  sources  of  supply,  which  is  at  the  same 
time  an  evidence  of  the  recency  of  creation,  is  suggested 
in  the  following  communication  to  a  local  daily  paper: 

IS  THE  SUN   COLD   AND   SCUD? 

Editor  Sun: — Some  years  ago  I  published,  in  my 
**Suborganic  Evolution,'*  the  opinion  that  the  body  of 
the  sun  is  cold  and  solid.  This  conclusion  was  reached 
by  reasoning  from  fundamental  principles.  I  have  never 
had  occasion  to  change  that  opinion.  On  the  contrary 
that  view  is  confirmed  by  more  recent  thoughts  upon 
phenomena  connected  with  the  sun.  Farther  than  that, 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  is  composed  of  disso- 
ciated elements,  and  that  the  flames  on  the  surface  of 
that  body  are  real  fires  occasioned  by  combustion,  or 
union  of  those  simple  elements. 

The  late  Prof.  Young  of  Princeton  advanced  the  idea 
that  these  flames  might  bo  produced  by  the  recombina- 
tion of  gases  that  had  once  been  combined,  and  then 


214    0$neiis,  Foundation  for  /SatVnc#  and  R§ligion 

dissociated.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they 
had  ever  been  combined  before.  Between  35  and  40  dis- 
tinct simple  elements  have  already  been  discovered  in 
the  sun's  photosphere.  All  we  have  to  admit  is  that 
oxygen,  hydrogen,  carbon  or  some  other  elements  which 
have  a  strong  aflSnity  for  each  other  may  exist  in  juxta- 
position, mingled  in  varying  quantities  and  purity.  As 
heat  penetrates  toward  the  interior  and  raises  these  to 
the  ignition  point,  all  the  varying  phenomena  of  flames, 
spicules,  prominences,  etc.,  would  be  produced. 

At  times  immense  quantities  of  oxygen,  hydrogen  or 
carbon  may  exist  in  juxtaposition  with  other  non-com- 
bustible elements  which  retard  combustion  so  that  it  pro- 
ceeds slowly  and  so  produces  ordinary  flames  such  as 
seem  to  cover  the  most  of  the  surface  of  the  sun. 

One  astronomer  observes;  '^The  appearance,  whicn 
probably  indicates  a  fact,  is  as  if  countless  jets  of  heated 
gas  were  issuing  through  vents  and  spiracles  over  the 
whole  surface,  thus  clothing  it  with  flame  which  heaves 
and  tosses  like  the  blaze  of  a  conflagration,  *like  a  prairie 
on  flre. '  ' '  How  can  it  be  better  accounted  for  than  upon 
the  supposition  that  it  is  fire  ?  At  other  times,  instead  of 
the  elements  being  so  mingled  as  to  produce  ordinary 
flame,  thousands  of  cubic  miles  of  oxygen,  hydrogen,  car- 
bon or  some  other  element  may  exist  in  proper  propor- 
tions to  make  an  explosive  compound  which  when  ignited 
would  throw  some  of  its  own  and  superincumbent  mate- 
rial hundreds  of  thousands  of  miles  above  the  surface. 
Thus  the  **  prominences "  can  easily  be  accounted  for. 
The  cavities  thus  produced,  together  with  the  cooling  and 
downpour  of  this  material,  as  well  as  other  circum- 
stances which  we  cannot  stop  to  consider  may  account 
for  the  principal  phenomena  in  the  sun's  appearance. 


O0n§sii,  Foundation  for  Sd&nce  and  Religion    21S 

Prof.  Young,  referred  to  above,  thought  that  the  dis- 
sociation and  recombination  of  these  elements  could  not 
produce  the  high  temperature  of  the  sun.  But,  in  the 
3rst  place,  such  a  process  could  not  be  expected  to  pro- 
duce any  great  effect  for,  according  to  the  principle  of 
the  conservation  of  force,  as  much  would  be  expended 
in  the  process  of  the  separation  as  would  be  given  out  by 
their  reuniting.  In  the  second  place,  I  have  always  been 
skeptical  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  speculations  regard- 
ing the  sun's  temperature.  And  this  skepticism  is  not 
diminished  by  the  remarkable  divergence  of  opinions  in 
regard  to  the  matter;  some  placing  the  temperature  as 
high  as  18,000,000  degrees,  Fahrenheit,  while  others 
place  it  as  low  as  3,000  degrees  Fahrenheit.  The  union 
of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  or  of  oxygen  and  carbon  pro- 
duces a  temperature  of  about  5,000  degrees;  that  of 
oxygen  and  acetylene  gas  between  6,000  degrees  and 
7,000  degrees,  Fahrenheit.  Other  elements  in  the  sun, 
by  their  combinations,  may  produce  still  higher  pyro- 
metrical  effects.  Indeed,  we  can  place  no  limits  to  the 
possibilities  of  the  sun  in  this  regard. 

Of  course  it  is  only  the  center  or  main  body  of  the 
sun  that  is  supposed,  as  Sir  William  Hershel  supposed 
it,  to  be  cold  and  solid. 

Another  thought  in  this  connection  is  that  this  com- 
bustion on  the  sun  has  not  always  proceeded  at  the  same 
rate.  At  times  it  may  have  been  rapid  enough  to  have 
produced  a  tropical  temperature  in  the  polar  regions  of 
the  earth.  At  other  times  it  may  have  been  slow  enough 
to  produce  the  age  of  ice. 

Still,  these  conditions  of  the  earth  probably  have  been 
owing  almost  entirely  to  the  geological  and  meteorological 
condition  of  the  earth  and  its  atmosphere.    It  is  an  ex- 


216  Genesis,  Foundation  for  Science  and  Religion 

ceedingly  interesting  subject  and  very  much  more  might 
be  said  in  support  of  my  views  upon  it,  but  this  is  prob- 
ably enough  for  this  time. — ^A.  L.  Gridley.  {Parsons 
Daily  Sun,  August  20,  1910.) 


\r  ^ 

RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 

University  of  California 

Richmond,  CA  94804-4698  ,sjot 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF  

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date  \.  ^ 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JUL  2  2  1991 


ClJ-NRl 


CIJ-NRLF 
010|^77 

REPOFTT 

05/10/91 


iA- 


l^ ,., 


TYPE  OF  REQUEST: 
-    [    ]  LOAN;  WILL  PAY  FEE 
*    (-^l  PHOTOCOPY;  MAX.  COST  $$25 
[    ] 


IMtktAi^mSi!^  (yWftft6§e  \lJEE. 


Date  shipped 

Insured 

DUE 


-Shipped  via 


'JTll-T? 


arges  $ 


.[    1  Return  insured 


Packing  Requirements      

RESTRICTIONS:  (    ]  Library  use  only 

(-  ) -CofJfing  n#t  pewnitte"*' «f   hNo  renewals 

[    ] 


NOT  SENT  BECAUSE:  [    )  in  use        [    ]  Lacking 

[  1  Not  owned  [    ]  At  bindery  [,  ]  Cost  exceeds  limit 

(  )  Non  Circulating     [    ]  Not  found  as  cited 

[  I  Not  on  Shelf     [    1  Poor  Conditbn    [    ]  Lost 

[  1  Lacks  copyright  compliance      [    )  On  order 

[  1  Vol /issue  not  yet  available     [    ]  On  reserve 

[  )  In  process    [    ]  Rerequest  on 

[  ]  Hold  placed 

[  ]  Estimated  Cost  of:  Loan  $    ^ 

Photocopy  $ 

[  ]  Prepayment  required 


) 

mi 
j 


_  MIcrofilm/fkjhe  $ 


BORROWINGLIBRAI 
Date  receiv^HN  0  5 
Returned  via 


ECORD: 

te  returnedlllN 
Insured  for  $  


1  4  19911 


Payment  provided  $ 


RENEWALS: 

Date  requested  . 
New  due  date 
Renewal  denied 


INTERUBRARY  LOAN  FORM 


) 

aoos 
) 


